freeman3 wrote:Btw a subjective standard would look to what the person actually believed (e.g., the suspect has a gun). An objective standard looks to the facts available to the officer to see whether his belief his life was in danger was reasonable even though it was mistaken. So the standard is objective, though as you pointed out jurors are going to have their own interpretation of what is reasonable under the circumstances.

Because "reasonable" is not an objective standard. What is reasonable to some is not reasonable to others.

It is a legal standard, but if it cannot be articulated in a way to cover every situation, it's not objective.

When a group is able to act with impunity, they will.

The questions is, are Police truly accountable ?

Until the age of ubiquitous video recording through smart phones, any police behavior could easily be covered up by the offending police and r their superiors..Now its more difficult. Increasingly video evidence is showing up that reflects situations that show questionable and in some case criminal behavior by police.
Universal use of body cameras, and ubiquitous dash board cameras will result in more responsible behavior by police. And also help convict some criminals .
Mandated police reporting of all shootings will also ensure that the magnitude of the phenomenon is well understood.
Right now, there's a preponderance of information controlled by the police. And a preponderance of suspicion and mistrust from the groups who's members are being shot...
That's not good for society, and in the long run it makes police work more difficult and dangerous.
.

rickyp wrote:When a group is able to act with impunity, they will. .

. . . unless their last name is Clinton.