She will now have her day in court.
As a side note, why did she go for a kill shot? Why not a shot in air first to see if his demeanor changes? Or a shot to the leg? It was obvious that none of the other officers thought he was that much of a threat.
“As a side note, why did she go for a kill shot?”
There is no such thing as a “kill shot.” There are only shots. They land somewhere between where you aim and where you hit. Unlimited factors can effect shot placement including adrenaline, breathing, angle, hand placement, level of experience, etc.... However, if you have decided to use Deadly Force then you are attempting to kill. Period. If you incapacitate the Subject and he still breathes, then that is just a bonus.
Apologies, the “why not just wound the Subject” argument is a pet peeve of mine.
And warning shots or “shooting in the air” is illegal or, at a minimum, against policy in most, if not all, departments - local, state, and federal.
Guns are not there to serve warnings. Guns are not there to wound people in hopes that they slow down. If the person is not an imminent threat then they should not even be threatened with a gun.
Basically one of the larger male cops should have tackled him and they could have gone Rodney King on him -- but they would have had a horrible lawsuit for that too (he was probably high on PCP like King).
I would never want to be a cop, and I know there are a lot of cop haters even here on FR, but it's hard to imagine a half-way decent world that doesn't have them. (Unless you are a 14 year old and believe in things like anarcho-libertarianism, or a 45 year old who hasn't grown up).
Shooting a person is only justified if one fears great bodily harm or death. In such a case, a person is justified in shooting to STOP the attack. There is no justification for an intent to kill. It is a coincidence of anatomy that the most effective way to use a gun to stop an attack also tends to be the most lethal.
If a person purposely shoots in a manner which shows less concern for stopping the attack, then one might conclude that the attack did not generate fear of great bodily harm or death.
Shooting at a person's leg might have the very undesirable and unintended consequence that the attack is not stopped, the shooter is then harmed or killed, and the wounded person bleeds out before an ambulance arrives; a lose-lose situation.
Warning shots are very difficult to justify. The bullet has to go somewhere. If one cop fires a warning shot, the others at the scene will empty their guns at whomever they believe is a threat. Warning shots are an expenditure of a resource that could end up being in short supply if a shootout does occur. Warning shots also demonstrate a reduced level of concern with great bodily harm or death at the hands of an attacker.
>>I support the police. They have reviewed the available evidence and testimony from all those there and have determined that charges against her are valid.
It seems substantially more likely this decision was made not by the police, but by the DA, who presumably would have had statements from all the cops involved, as well as other information, like the video(s), to assist in his decision-making.