[Khao]

Oh well, this looks to me as if they had to have an excuse to shoot him.

What I find weird is how it doesn't look like this question gets asked a lot. Everyone seems to think that killing him without a trial is how we do it now, but Saddam Hussein had a trial and the nazi SS had a trial. Killing bad people on sight is normally NOT how we do it.

[genericbrandx]

Saddam and the Nazis surrendered, bin Laden did not. The rules of engagement are clear, which also hold true for metro police actions, in that lethal force is authorized when the other party brandishes a weapon. If he had not had a weapon, if he had raised his hands instead of an AK then he would have faced trial but that is not how things went down.

[Khao]

I cannot find any article that talks about how exactly did bin Laden resist. Do you have any link saying that bin Laden was armed?

[chickenorshrimp]

I believe the story I linked from the AP has the most info that's out now. The President still hasn't authorized releasing the photos of the body yet either, so there is still more info to come.

[trafficlight]

I would have to assume that bin Laden was always armed given the price on his head.

[ignifero]

Indeed. I had to read a few articles to find out that he was shot in the head after resisting. I have no reason to dispute the fact that he resisted (he wasnt the only one who died), but there is an air of revenge here, and that's not how the western world does it. I guess years and years of FUD have changed some attitudes.