[vga42]

>If the officers believed the armed man they were scuffling with fired a shot then it wouldn't be murder.

Is that really how it works in USA? A belief that an incapacitated person fired an accidental shot is grounds for murder and execution? It is technically a murder even if those people legally have immunity, in the same way as the 1930s nazis committed crimes even though they were legal in their country.

[nailer]

Yes, if you’re a police officer and someone shoots at you while resisting arrest you’re allowed to shoot back. Like in every other country.

[zahlman]

And, in fact, an officer only needs to have a reasonable belief in the moment (considering "the totality of the circumstances" but only up to that point, and in the officer's own point of view) of an impending threat of that level of violence; that belief doesn't need to be correct, doesn't need to stand up to scrutiny in hindsight (or going frame by frame in a video) and doesn't require the gun to have already fired.

[zahlman]

> Is that really how it works in USA

Yes (as written by the person you're quoting; your rephrasing misses the point), and it most likely works that way in your country as well. Even if it's legal where you live to carry firearms in public, I would strongly encourage you to read up on how it works in your area before doing so. Especially if you can remotely imagine yourself ever doing anything that could possibly be grounds for an arrest, including for political protest purposes.

[vga42]

>and it most likely works that way in your country as well.

Wow. It absolutely does not. What the fuck?

[zahlman]

> If the officers believed the armed man they were scuffling with fired a shot then it wouldn't be murder.

Please tell me what country it is, so I can confirm for you.

Also: what exactly do you imagine is the reason that officers carry firearms?