99% of the time, I suspect deadly assaults with firearms take place with a perpetrator OUTSIDE a house firing at an occupant INSIDE the house, so I simply don’t see it as a leap of incompetence that the police would interpret the guy who was outside actively shooting when they pulled up (two shots, I believe)
Point is, he wasn’t just walking around with a weapon. He was actively shooting it. Into a house.
I blame 99% of this on the guy with the weapon. I think it is unfortunate, but having a weapon implies great responsibility, and I just don’t think what he did could be characterized as responsible in any sense.
” He was actively shooting it. Into a house.”
And seen by the cops as they drove up.
“the guy who was outside actively shooting when they pulled up”
The story doesn’t say he was actively shooting when the police arrived. The story says he had fired two shots BEFORE the police arrived. And since he had only fired two shots, he must NOT have been actively shooting when the police were present. Which is why I say unless he did something stupid like point his rifle at the police, they had no justification for just shooting him on sight.