"All they have to prove is that they fear for their life. It does not have to make sense, does not have to be 'justified', etc."

That's not really true. The standard is a reasonable fear for your life. That's reasonable standard is evaluated in court by how a reasonable person would have reacted. Yes, they do give some deference to the individual who was actually there (police or civilian). The real problems happen because the DA and the courts tend to have bias when it comes to subjecting members of the system to the same process that others face.

▲

PaulDavisThe1st 3 days ago | parent | next [-]

Police officers in court cases don't have to meet that standard until it established that they do not have qualified immunity. In vastly more than 9 out of 10 cases, they do, and thus that standard is completely irrelevant.

▲

giantg2 3 days ago | parent [-]

Qualified immunity only applies to civil cases, not criminal.

	▲	PaulDavisThe1st 3 days ago \| parent [-]
		Most (not all) cases against police officers for excessive/fatal use of force are civil (typically civil rights violations).

▲

fireflash38 3 days ago | parent | prev [-]

Oh good. So you'll still be dead, and they might get a reprimand. If you're lucky they'll lose their job.