What might be done in the heat of the moment and what is reasonable or just are not necessarily the same. I think suggesting considering assault of one's family instead of a stranger is precisely the wrong approach. Consider your response to harm to a stranger. I don't see how holding different positions on retaliatory use of lethal force depending on whether someone is related to you or not is a tenable position. If shooting a stranger in the head after you witness them slapping another stranger isn't just, neither is shooting them in the head after witnessing them slapping your wife/child, though the latter is perhaps more understandable.
I disagree, respectfully. I think people are so fast to condemn something that they have no way of understanding. It is so much easier to make judgements in a disassociated fashion.
Cops are usually extremely close to their partners. They take the responsibility of the other's life quite seriously. So if you want to even pretend to understand what happened, you have to imagine someone was attacking a friend/loved one with a hammer.
Personally, as you can no doubt tell, I think the cop was right to shoot the guy completely disassociated. But it's because I know what my reaction would be in the most extreme situation that I don't stand back and place judgement.
I was speaking more to the point of your comment regarding someone attacking your family without a weapon forfeiting their life. A hammer is absolutely a deadly weapon and while it would be preferable to avoid killing people in general, I do think lethal force is justified in defense of someone's life.
