Answer to the hypothetical

The situation I used for the hypothetical was the Boston Massacre.

The only two responses I read showed that the two people who responded had no real idea of what is going on and confirmed that you people really are idiots, but... (I did try to dumb down the questions after that though).

Actual outcome of the Boston Massacre was that deadly force was used and the soldiers were tried (with John Adams being their legal counsel).

The Colonists still saw themselves as British at this point and were demanding their rights as Britons.  One of those rights is due process of law.  This concept goes back to chapter 39 of Magna Carta, in which King John promised that “[n]o free man shall be taken or imprisoned or disseized or exiled or in any way destroyed, nor will we go upon him nor send upon him, except by the lawful judgment of his peers or by the law of the land.”

The Constitution states only one command twice. The Fifth Amendment says to the federal government that no one shall be "deprived of life, liberty or property without due process of law." The Fourteenth Amendment, ratified in 1868, uses the same eleven words, called the Due Process Clause, to describe a legal obligation of all states. These words have as their central promise an assurance that all levels of American government must operate within the law ("legality") and provide fair procedures.

If you were inclined to say that deadly force was justified, then you happen to side with the redcoats!  In fact, you are saying that there was no reason for any of the further unrest which was the war for independence.

You wouldn't have prosecuted them because the Redcoats did the right thing.

Think about that.

BTW, if I were able to go back in time I would use modern crowd control methods to deal with this situation--NOT DEADLY FORCE.

Anyone who thinks that I would condone the use of deadly force against UNARMED Civilians clearly is not paying too much attention to what I am saying.

Or incapable of understanding what I have said.

What Should LE do. Should they be charged if they use deadly force?

Facts to this hypothetical situation:

Officer A  is walking down the street and X says something personal to A.  Officer says X knows that's not true. Then X responds by screaming insults and obscenities at Officer A. Officer B tells X he shouldn't be so rude to A.  X and B get into an altercation where B hits X. X tells B he's dead if he tries to shoot him.

A crowd of around 50 people begins to gather around A and B.  The crowd begins to shout insults at B and throw objects at him.  A call goes out for back up and 7 more officers arrive. One of the crowd tells the officers that the crowd will kill the officers if they shoot.

At this point, the crowd has grown to 300-400 people.  The officers tell the crowd to disperse.

Instead of dispersing, the crowd becomes more rowdy and belligerent.  They are throwing objects at the officers and taunting them.  One member of the crowd threatens the officers with a baseball bat.  Finally, something strikes one of the officers and knocks him down.  That is followed by members of the crowd attempting to hit the officers.  One of the officers is struck during the melee.

I should add that there had been agitation about "police brutality" among the locals, which contributed to why there was the taunting of the officers.

Additionally, most of the members of the crowd were not what people would call "solid citizens"--after all, they are threatening authority and willing to attack them and possibly kill them.

What should the officers do in your opinion?

1. Retreat
2. Use nonlethal force to stop the threat
3. Fire their weapons into the crowd

Should the officers be charged if they used deadly force in your opinion?

Think about your answers to this scenario very carefully.