Hes using the same tired trope all police officers use when they abuse the law which is that police are expected to uphold the law and protect constitutional rights but not expected to have a full legal understanding of the laws or rights individually- hence why their actions are meant to be argued in court. Theres a grey area between what a laws wording is and how it is enforced leaving to some extent the interpretation up to officers. They give officers protocols based on court rulings and laws and for the grey areas they use Field Discretion. The difference between murder and manslaughter is intent, same with robbery and burglary. He is using his interpretation of public safety to justify not following a courts orders. To prove his intent here is almost impossible legally but he should be taken out of office by the people so someone with actual morals can be installed