This started out as a fairly well informed and intelligent conversation.

Unfortunately it quickly degraded into an ignorant conspiracy theory rant. I was sad to see that.

The latter sentiments are a perfect example of the disconnect between the public and legal matters such as law enforcements use of force, how criminal law works, and how carefully scrutinized the actions of any law enforcement officer are. The notion that renegade cops with itchy trigger fingers make up the majority of any police force is preposterous. I don't disagree that there aren't a few out there that shouldn't carry a credential and a gun to work, but they are FEW and far between and are usually weeded out of the system long before they have a chance to do harm. I think there are a lot of dickheads and power mongers in the field, but that is a different topic entirely.

Based on the "facts" that are known and generally agreed upon in this case, to me the shooting seems questionable. That having been said, I wasn't there and none of us in a place to accurately judge what happened.

Courts view these things based on what the officer knew at the time of the incident and what he is able to articulate as reasons for his action. The standard that case law has set to judge those actions is "reasonable" vs. "unreasonable."

Whether some use of force was appropriate will be determined, primarily, using the following factors:

1. The severity of the crime
2. Was the subject an immediate risk to themselves or others
3. Was the subject actively resisting arrest.
4. Was the subject fleeing to avoid arrest.

There are a number of other considerations as well, but those are the four primary factors that courts will look at to determine if use of force was appropriate. From there they explore whether the force applied was reasonable given the officers statements and the facts known at the time of the incident, in this case the shooting. Read up on Graham vs. Connor or Tennessee vs. Garner if you are interested in seeing where our current use of force policies and legal standards have come from.

Was some use of force appropriate in this case. Absolutely. Did the guy need to get shot? Again, I wasn't there. I haven't read the courts decision, nor do I think it is accurately reflected by the words of the reporter, given the language and tone.

Most LE officers are protected by something similar to what is called "qualified immunity" in the federal system, which basically says that they are not civilly or criminally liable for their actions if they were acting within their guiding policies or what they believed (in good faith) those policies to be at the time of their action.

I think proving "intent" for the purpose of criminal charges in a case like this would be virtually impossible, hence the current situation.