TFA includes multiple clips of video from separate angles that all corroborate the claim, with detailed analysis, and even including a CNN analyst conceding that the vehicle strikes the officer. There is no question, based on the vehicle's path, that it is moved forward, towards the officer, intentionally.

It swerves away at the last moment, and there is no clear intent (I agree there is likely not intent) to strike the officer; but the movement of the vehicle is clearly without heed for the officer's safety.

The law is clear (TFA cites it extensively) that a deliberate attempt on the officer's life is not required, legally speaking, to justify the shoot. It is also clear that hindsight (e.g. "he could have moved out of the way instead") is not a legal factor.

I am reposting this comment because it was flagged — in spite of being net upvoted, clearly not in violation of posting guidelines, and clearly evidenced — and because it is necessary in order to refute a bald assertion that contradicts the evidence.

----

TFA includes multiple clips of video from separate angles that all corroborate the claim, with detailed analysis, and even including a CNN analyst conceding that the vehicle strikes the officer. There is no question, based on the vehicle's path, that it is moved forward, towards the officer, intentionally.

It swerves away at the last moment, and there is no clear intent (I agree there is likely not intent) to strike the officer; but the movement of the vehicle is clearly without heed for the officer's safety.

The law is clear (TFA cites it extensively) that a deliberate attempt on the officer's life is not required, legally speaking, to justify the shoot. It is also clear that hindsight (e.g. "he could have moved out of the way instead") is not a legal factor.