I have seldom if ever agreed with Sotomayer.
With the bare evidence we have in this case, the context to me seems as Sotomayer suggests - the officer acted in unnecessary haste. The person he claimed he was acting in defense of did not demonstrate they felt threatened, and other than holding a knife she had been hacking a tree with, the woman who was shot did not seem to be verbally threatening anyone.
I do not believe acting in unnecessary haste qualifies for immunity for a police officers actions.
I am as tough on criminals as the next person, as well as being tough on acknowledging police commands when necessary. None of that dismisses police officers to act first and think later. The first act of police is to quickly and CALMLY assess the context of a situation, not just act first as if there is always a perp to be taken down. Failure to immediately respond to rapid fire police commands does not in and of itself - without additional actions - automatically constitute a threat. What were the additional actions of the woman that constituted a threat? In the evidence we are shown it appeared to be none.
I have seldom if ever agreed with Sotomayer.
...
You shouldn’t agree with her now. She’s still the dumbest member of the court.
Have you ever observed someone doing something stupid that put them in danger all while they were oblivious to the impending calamity that they were creating?
That is what the roommate was doing in this instance....standing within lunge distance of a crazy woman with a knife.