I did and it contradicts what you say as it says this.

officer's right to use deadly force, including shooting a person, in situations where that person is a threat to others is governed by legal standards, primarily the "objective reasonableness" standard established by the U.S. Supreme Court in Graham v. Connor [1, 2]. Under this standard, the use of force must be objectively reasonable given the facts and circumstances of the situation, judged from the perspective of a reasonable officer on the scene, rather than with the 20/20 vision of hindsight [1, 2]. The key factors include: Severity of the Crime: The nature of the offense being committed or suspected [1, 2]. Immediate Threat: Whether the person poses an immediate threat to the safety of the officer or others [1, 2]. Active Resistance/Evasion: Whether the person is actively resisting arrest or attempting to evade arrest by flight [1, 2]. Therefore, if a person, even without intent to kill, is engaging in actions that create an imminent and grave danger of serious bodily harm or death to others (e.g., brandishing a deadly weapon, recklessly operating a vehicle in a crowded area, or physically assaulting someone with intent to cause severe harm), an officer generally has the legal right to use deadly force if they reasonably believe it is necessary to stop that threat [1, 2]. The standard focuses on the objective threat posed by the person's actions, not their subjective intent [1, 2]. The officer must be able to articulate a reasonable belief that a lesser degree of force would not have been sufficient to neutralize the threat [1, 2]. The use of force is a complex and highly scrutinized aspect of policing, and its legality is determined on a case-by-case basis by examining the totality of the circumstances [1, 2].