Yes, I did read it and the law is established in every hornbook on criminal law. Go read it yourself before making snarky comments. Subsequent cases in California have adopted and confirmed this point of view.
Objective reasonableness is whether a reasonable police officer who is aware that a fleeing felon is unarmed would fire 8 bullets into such a person? To begin with, the officer admits to not having known of the prior burglary.
The is a serious legal issue not the foolish black and white (no pun intended) that some here try to make it out.
If the response to you came across as snide then I am sorry , however I gave you the FL Statues and you have to read case law
Like I said it takes more than 10 mimutes to look up, and google all the case laws in my state.
Now it might be different in CA and it probably is but we were talking about FL law when I corrected you and nothing has changed.
Also objective reasonableness will be discussed and important by what is said by the state attorney etc not what you think as will the totality of circumstances.
Forgot to address what youstated too about the officer did not know the guy had dpne the robbery.
If you know about protocol then you would know that when an officer approaches the scene and a BOLO has been given out then the officer looks for potential witnesses and suspects.
This I believe is what the officer did and when you are as big as this guy then it is hard to blend in.
The officer spotted him, he fitted the description, and he did a Terry stop and was well within the law to do so.
I’ll let you look up that case too