An absurd legal standard. If the cop was worried about what was to happen next, he should have simply brandished the weapon.
Oops, that's right, you think the cop was correct in skipping that intermediate step and going right to shooting over popcorn throwing.
Once again, absurd.
I think that there is no "intermediate step". Brandishing and warning shots are use of deadly force and are legally justified only in the same circumstances where firing to stop the attack is justified.
I have heard of a jurisdiction which is considering treating warning shots as less than deadly force but it hasn't happened yet.
Do you disagree with the laws concerning use of deadly force? Would you be seeking a conviction against Reeves if he brandished a gun rather than firing it?
My understanding of the law is that, if Reeves was wrong to shoot, then he would be wrong to display the firearm. Is that not the way the law is written?