I wanted to find out more on what happened and sadly this one doesn’t seem to be going well. Not only has the case against the officer started yet, since this has happened Erik has now been arrested 4 times since for multiple reasons. He has a gps tracker now and on probation for 8 years. My guess is the original officer will be found not guilty if they ever even have the trial that for some reason needs 5 years to start.
Yeah it’s funny how he suddenly became a career criminal after being shot by a police officer. It’s almost as if the rest of the police department and the prosecutor’s office are looking to punish this kid for surviving their murderous colleagues attack.
Couldn’t a decent lawyer argue that all those things only happened because of the trauma of this initial interaction as well? Or would that be counterproductive?
You wouldn’t want anything about it in. You just want what the officer knew which is basically nothing about anything so it’s just shooting a fleeing subject in the back which is illegal unless you know them to be armed and dangerous.
Why would you think the law gave a shit about extenuating circumstances? Three Strikes laws and mandatory minimums show what the law thinks about people doing what is necessary to survive.
I wanted to find out more on what happened and sadly this one doesn’t seem to be going well. Not only has the case against the officer started yet, since this has happened Erik has now been arrested 4 times since for multiple reasons. He has a gps tracker now and on probation for 8 years. My guess is the original officer will be found not guilty if they ever even have the trial that for some reason needs 5 years to start.
https://www.ksat.com/news/local/2025/11/18/timeline-erik-cantus-multiple-arrests-since-he-was-shot-by-an-ex-sapd-officer-in-2022/
Yeah it’s funny how he suddenly became a career criminal after being shot by a police officer. It’s almost as if the rest of the police department and the prosecutor’s office are looking to punish this kid for surviving their murderous colleagues attack.
If they get a decent lawyer all that would be struck since the officer didn’t and couldn’t know that at the time.
Couldn’t a decent lawyer argue that all those things only happened because of the trauma of this initial interaction as well? Or would that be counterproductive?
You wouldn’t want anything about it in. You just want what the officer knew which is basically nothing about anything so it’s just shooting a fleeing subject in the back which is illegal unless you know them to be armed and dangerous.
Why would you think the law gave a shit about extenuating circumstances? Three Strikes laws and mandatory minimums show what the law thinks about people doing what is necessary to survive.