It’s difficult to confirm from watching the video (where it appears Robertson merely looks over his shoulder at the deputies just before they begin to open fire), but some witnesses claimed that he aimed his gun at them.

x YouTube Video

The real kicker to it all is this: Even if he did aim it at police, Robertson’s gun was empty. There were no bullets loaded in the weapon, which was found underneath him. Two unloaded .45-caliber bullets were found on the ground next to his body. This report was provided with little controversy or irony, as if it should be perfectly normal to be shot in the back, and then again on the ground as you crawl while [not] pointing a [not] loaded weapon at police.

This shooting came just days after we were treated to a lengthy and detailed explanation by Illinois State’s Attorney Anita Alvarez for the shooting of 17-year-old Ronald Johnson by Chicago police.

x YouTube Video

For nearly an hour, McCarthy used a PowerPoint presentation to explain in detail where police cars were and where Johnson ran from officers. The officers were in the area responding to numerous 911 calls from residents saying that shots had been fired. Some of those calls were played at the news conference. McCarthy explained that Johnson had been in a car with three other people that was shot at, had left the scene and then returned. While officers were interviewing one of the men in that car, Johnson tried to run.

Let’s just emphasize that Johnson had been in a car that had been shot at. If anything, he was one of the victims in this situation. Someone else had fired at them and all Johnson did was run away—he had a weapon but he did not attempt to use that gun on officers. He bumped into them and knocked one of them down, but he didn’t attempt to shoot. He ran the other way instead, until he was ultimately shot in the back by officers as he crossed the street.

And then there was the case of the shooting of Cedrick Chatman, where a Chicago police investigator was fired when he found the shooting of this 17-year-old (who was “armed” with a cellphone) unjustified. A federal judge has ruled that this footage will not be released.

x YouTube Video

In the police account of the shooting, Chatman ditched a stolen car and ran from two officers. As the officers pursued on foot, the 5-foot-7, 133-pound Chatman turned toward them. Officer Kevin Fry told investigators he feared for his partner's life and fired four shots. Fry said he believed Chatman was armed. It turned out he was carrying a box containing an iPhone. "The video supports Officer Fry's observation that (Chatman) was pointing a firearm at Officer Toth," the final IPRA report said, adding that the "use of deadly force was in compliance with Chicago Police Department policy." Davis said the videos provide a much different account from the police version of the shooting: Chatman was running for his life and never turned toward the officers.

No charges have been filed against any of these officers for their actions, and it doesn’t appear that any will be. It is treated as essentially normal for police to shoot and kill any person who walks the streets with a weapon and refuses to listen to or abide by police instructions. Police will argue that in these situations they had “no choice.” There was nothing else they could do. The suspect was “armed” or believed to be armed, or maybe they had a very gun-like cell phone in their hand, or they looked like they were reaching for a gun, or maybe it was a lighter, or something. Whatever. They. Had. No. Choice!

Right?

Yeah, that’s not exactly how things went down with this armed guy who argued with police, loudly cursing them for 10 solid minutes without having a single shot fired at him.

x YouTube Video

In the end he kept the gun, and wasn’t arrested or even cited.

Then there’s the case of this teenager who was walking down the street with a shotgun in Aurora, Colorado, and refused to put the weapon down or to provide his ID to officers who questioned him.

x YouTube Video

He was cited for obstruction because he refused to provide his ID, then sent on his way. He kept the shotgun.

Or you can watch this video with two open carry activists in Abilene, Texas, who argued with and harassed police then stormed off. Not stopped, not detained, not arrested, not cited. They just left.

x YouTube Video

So it would appear that some people in open-carry states such as Texas, Michigan, and Colorado won’t immediately get shot in the back by police simply because they happen to be carrying a loaded firearm. If you stand there and vehemently argue with police, you just might live. Maybe.

Or then again it may have something to do with the automatic benefit of the doubt that some people get afforded in these situations—unlike Tamir Rice, who was given just two seconds to respond,or Jonathon Crawford. They both were carrying toy guns in the open-carry state of Ohio. But they really never had a chance to argue anything.

x YouTube Video

Perhaps when you have people like this calling 911 spouting a pack of lies, things are bound to go badly. Despite what the caller claimed even after he’d seen the video, Jonathon didn’t “wave his gun around,” he didn’t “point it at kids,” he didn't try to “load it.” It was a pellet gun. He was on the phone with the mother of his children the entire time and not even paying attention.

x YouTube Video

So maybe it’s not just about being in an “open carry” state. Perhaps it’s something else entirely. Perhaps if we could name that something, identify it, quantify it, then maybe we could do something about it and correct the problem of 1,100 people per year (1,103 in 2015 as this story is written) being killed by police.

This month alone, 42 people have been shot by police. That’s in the two weeks since the death of Nicholas Robertson. That’s just three victims less than the 45 who have been killed by extreme Islamic foreign-inspired terrorism in the U.S. in the 14 years since September 11, including Ft. Hood and San Bernardino. It’s a safe bet they’ll exceed that total before the year is out, and that a significant portion of victims are either unarmed (usually 20 percent) or make no threatening action against police.

But don’t think we’re going to see this subject brought up 24/7 on cable news, or during an entire presidential debate. Because many people simply don’t think it’s wrong to shoot a man in the back when he is running away.

Or when he’s unarmed.

Or when he’s black.