I understand the risks of carrying a firearm and that you must be prepared to use the weapon if needed. But that does not mean that you consciously plan on killing people. In a defensive situation you shoot to stop a threat, killing is a possible outcome, but it should never be your goal.

I agree the facts are under dispute. I'm merely pointing out the scenario where lethal force is justified.

Again, more facts that are disputed. I don't know that he was fired at when his back was turned, and I don't know that he was actually trying to surrender.

If any lesson can be learned by black or white Americans, it should be this. Don't rob stores. If a cop tells you to get out of the road, do it without comment, and certainly don't take a swing at him though the window of his police vehicle. But, if you've done the first three, under no circumstances reach in and try to grab his gun.

None of the shots hit him from behind. All three autopsies agree on this. The rest of that quote is just noise.

8+ shots fired rapidly in two bursts within 10 seconds doesn't not indicate much for either side. In defensive situations, you fire until the threat is stopped. I don't think at any point the cop ever thought "I'm going to kill this kid". I think he reacted to a situation that escalated quickly into a life or death situation much the same as any person would. Maybe he overreached, but maybe he used the exactly the amount of force needed to resolve the situation. I simply don't have enough information to know and I doubt anyone getting their information from media reports does either.

If 5 seconds ago, someone attacks you and tries to take your weapon, yes, the threshold for justification of lethal force is crossed. In fact, once the altercation escalates to the point of struggling for a cop's weapon, the only way to deescalate it back to a non-lethal level is complete and unconditional surrender. The cop has every right to attempt to stop a fleeing attacker even if lethal force is required.

Actually, yeah, if you try to disarm a cop and get wounded doing it, then you try to flee, the cop has the right to use force (including lethal) to effect an arrest.

There are conflicting accounts as to if the guy was trying to surrender, or if he attempted to lunge for the cop a second time. I honestly don't know what was happening. But, I don't think the cop was planning on killing the guy. Possibly his judgment got clouded after the struggle during which his gun discharged twice. Against a much larger/younger/stronger assailant anything short of him falling to the ground spread eagle should be viewed suspiciously.

Then what is the issue with the old record being out there? If Europeans are as eager to forgive and forget past crimes as you suggest, then they won't hold it against someone and no harm is caused.

The point is to determine if each request is covered by the law. The problem is that the requests they get are not individually approved by a court, that would make it too easy. Instead, they HAVE to be the judge of which requests are covered by the law.

Personally, I think this is a BS law. If something is legally present on web, ie. a ten year old news story, then it should be index-able. However, if there a a factual problem, or contains private information, then the site owners should be required to correct it or take it down. The idea of going after the index is ridiculous, not effective and lazy.

The judge and jury.

The better question is who IS suggesting that he made such an offer?

Off the top of my head, I can only imagine a situation where a phone is strongly suspected to contain information relating to a kidnapping, bombing, etc where the information may lead to the rescue of a victim or victims. In other cases they can collect the phone while they wait for a warrant from a judge.

Then how do you justify the statement, "as soon as you take data from public record and make it searchable then it's not public record any more." ?

I don't follow your reasoning. How does anything that becomes a part of the public record stop being public? I can understand correcting the record if there are errors, corrections add to the record. But, I don't see how subtracting data is ever a good thing.

You don't "take" data from the public record, you "share" data from the public record. It doesn't stop being part of the public record just because it gets republished.

If this were true the first amendment would make copyright void.

There are several key issues with this case.

One, she made minimum wage, any loss of pay due to unavoidable fees on top of taxes, etc. would reduce her pay below that legal rate.
Two, the state she worked in has a requirement that “The wages shall be paid in lawful money of the United States or check."
Three, there appears be have been no notice given that she would be paid in a non-standard way.

I hope she wins and this predatory practice ends before it gains too much momentum.