TexasCHLforum.com

I have two thoughts about this story. First, assuming the man was rational, why would he have pointed his gun at the officer? He apparently didn't want to shoot him, because he had the drop on him but didn't fire. That only leaves me with one conclusion. If he was rational, then he had decided he wanted to die. What other explanation could there have been?

Second, if you were talking to a neighbor and he pointed his gun at you, what would you do? Once the gun is pointed at you, your choices are limited. If, in your judgment, the neighbor isn't serious about pulling the trigger, you could try to talk him down, but there is a high risk in that scenario. If you're wrong, you're dead. If you're not certain what the neighbor's intentions are, then you have to either escape or shoot. Police officers can't run away. They're paid to confront difficult situations.

While the officer may have been wrong to try to take the gun away from him (I have no idea if he did or not and, if he did, if he was wrong or not), once the gun was pointed at him, he was forced to make a quick decision that determined whether he lived or died. Under the same circumstances, I would shoot. Wouldn't you?

For me the lesson of this incident is, if you are confronted by a police officer who you are convinced has no legal right to do what he's doing to you you either need to shoot without hesitation or surrender and wait for your day in court. The latter has a much higher likelihood of ensuring your survival.

The mistake the man made was drawing his weapon, pointing it at the officer and not firing. He should have either never drawn the weapon or fired once drawing. Either way the courts would have sorted it out. Now he's dead and nothing will get sorted out.