(1) the law enforcement officer reasonably believe that deadly fore is immediately necessary to protect the law enforcement officer or another person, other than the subject of the use of deadly force, from the threat of serious bodily injury or death;
(2) the law enforcement’s officer’s actions are reasonable, given the totality of the circumstances; and
(3) all other options have been exhausted or do not reasonably lend themselves to the circumstances.
If the individual feels he met all of these, he's going to feel justified in shooting. She was not outside on the other side a door.
She was climbing through a broken window, so far as I can tell. We're not seeing what he saw, because the video is not from his perspective. From out where the videographer was standing it looks entirely different from the shooter's perspective. Part of my time in the USAF, I was a photographer, and I documented a riot at the base where I was stationed. The rioters there thought they were justified in their rioting, but they were also putting lives in danger, theirs and others.
You have no idea what the shooter was seeing, thinking, or feeling. You ASSUME things that are not evident. Is it possible that you're right? Yes, it is. It is also possible that you are wrong. You need to realize that. I learned something long ago that is probably applicable here: Never attribute to malice that which can be adequately explained by stupidity.
It’s not a subjective standard. It’s a reasonable officer standard. What the officer personally (subjectively) felt or thought is of little importance.
He came from cover, where he was safe, and shot her.
That’s murder. There are about a 1,000 cases on this.