I see what you’re saying, I’m just saying it’s bullshit that they are considering it no matter what. If the kid threatened the man’s life, one could make the argument it’s relevant I guess.. not sure it matters what his motivations were if he threatened him. And I don’t mean a verbal threat when I say “threatened him.” There’s a charge for that and you don’t run someone over in an alley because of a verbal threat. For the man to be justified at all would require extraordinary circumstances…for example, he’s driving and the kid steps in front of him and points a gun at him. But even if that were the case, I still don’t see how the kid’s affiliations have anything to do with it…unless the kid premeditated a hit within the context of a “mission” on behalf of his “extremist group.” The problem I have with this is that to even go there gives validation to the idea that the man would have been justified had the kid belonged to such a group. I realize that you don’t think that would be a valid reason to kill him anymore than I do. What I’m taking issue with is that any of us (especially cops) are playing this game according to their bullshit, made up rules… The fact that it’s operating on a false premise to begin with, and that false premise is even being entertained is what I find problematic.