Diversion. It would not be reasonable for me to believe there was a gun pointed at me in this circumstance, and therefore I would not do so.
See again, you weren't there, you don't know for sure what you would have done.
The NYPD have quite a history of doing this.
private citizens have a history of killing their fellow citizens too, and in much greater numbers
Given a reasonable belief that the "something" is a lethal weapon (not present here, but for the sake of argument)...
I see you are the sole arbiter of "reasonable"?
No, I would not be guilty of a crime. What I would be is personally civilly liable for the damages incurred, irrespective of my "belief" about that or anything else.
So, no, you don't get to ignore the cop/citizen distinction, just because it all of a sudden suits you, thanks to the brilliant concept of qualified immunity.
Which comes from the fact the police officers are expected to act whereas private citizens are not. your job is not to arrest people all day. Every action you take at your job is probably not reviewed by different courts. King county, near where I live has over 200 different judges, you can't personally sue an officer every single time one of these two hundred different individuals rules some act a violation of someone's civil rights.otherwise everyone would be sued out of the job, although that's probably what you want anyway.
WTF? Irrelevant, and too specific to generalize from.
just to provide an idea of how you can be genuinely wrong due to rapidly evolving situations.
Fair enough. I take it that you then reject any limitations in military ROE.
when I eventually read some international law I'll get back to you.