As internet sleuths and government officials alike try to piece together the facts of Wednesday’s shooting in Minnesota, many of them are raising an irrelevant question, namely: “Oh, so you’re saying that she deserved to die?” This, Charlie Cooke contends on today’s edition of The Editors, is precisely the wrong question in this case.
“The question at hand is whether or not, in that moment, the officer reasonably feared for his life,” says Charlie. “And if he did reasonably fear for his life, then unfortunately, he was justified in opening fire and firing all three shots.”
Charlie says, of the three shots, that he’s “seen some people say ‘one of them may have been justified, not the others.’ That’s not how it works. The basic rule is this: If you — and again, I’m not putting my thumb on the scale here. I’m saying if — if you can demonstrate that you reasonably feared for your life, then you are justified in opening fire. That’s true in this circumstance. It’s true in a home invasion. You, at the point at which you fear you could be killed, are permitted to use your firearm. And using your firearm means killing.”
“So the whole thing here revolves around one question and one question alone,” says Charlie. “Knowing what, not what we know, knowing what he knew at that moment, in that short time frame, did the officer believe that his life was endangered such that he was permitted to kill the deceased?”
“I think the question is quite difficult, but I think on balance from what I have seen, the answer is probably yes. And if it went to trial, which it won’t, would probably be yes as well.”
The Editors podcast is recorded on Tuesdays and Fridays every week and is available wherever you listen to podcasts.