Did you read the article? From your comment it appears you didn’t or if you did you failed to understand it.
There was far more than erratic driving involved. The women pursued the policeman’s vehicle onto a parking lot. She side swiped his vehicle while backing up and she was arrested for drunk driving for the third time.
He had a right to shoot a mean drunk who attempted to harm him with her vechicle.
“There was far more than erratic driving involved. “
Not really. There was a near accident and the two cars ended up in the parking lot. From other posts of people in that area the distance from near accident to parking lot was very short.
Public statements indicated he pulled the gun first. She called 911 and tried to get away from a man with a gun. In the process she backed into his car. This was done at low speed as both cars were at a stop and neither had time to obtain any speed.
He shot 5 times from inside his car, thru his window into her car.
They arrested her for drunk driving but she has not been convicted as of yet. people don’t seem willing to give her the benefit they want the cop to have (innocent before proven).
“He had a right to shoot a mean drunk who attempted to harm him with her vechicle.”
He had no proof that she was drunk. He had not run her plates as he was off duty and in his own car out of his jurisdiction.
Also, the last I heard being mean and or drunk is not justification for deadly force. The question is around intent, her intent was apparently to get away from a man with a gun.