Ok, let's give the benefit of the doubt to the cops (I dont want to do that but let's do it for the sake of pursuing another line of argument) and say that the cop had a right to protect himself and use his gun. Why did he have to shoot her in the chest? Why not shoot her in the arm or some other non-lethal area of the body in order to disable her? It is disputed by witneses, but the cop says that he warned the woman a few times before shooting. Wouldn't that give him time enough to think about a non-lethal way of subduing her?
-Thomas
__________________________________ Do you Yahoo!? Protect your identity with Yahoo! Mail AddressGuard http://antispam.yahoo.com/whatsnewfree