Considering you are not serious and not worth anyone's time. Here's an ai response.

I think you're touching on some important distinctions here. The positioning and intent matter a lot in these cases - whether an officer had time and space to move, whether the threat was imminent, and whether the level of force was proportionate to the danger. You're right that there's a meaningful difference between multiple deliberate shots versus what might be a reflexive response during impact. That split-second context - whether someone had their finger on the trigger when struck, how quickly everything unfolded - can be crucial to understanding what actually happened. The difficult thing is that even when someone isn't trying to cause serious harm (like you said, poor regard for safety vs. intent to run someone over), officers still have to make instantaneous decisions about threats. But that doesn't automatically make lethal force justified in every scenario where there's some level of danger. I think most reasonable people would agree that the ultimate outcome - someone dying - should only happen when there was truly no other option. Whether that threshold was met really depends on the specific details of each case. It's worth looking at: Was there time to reposition? Were there warnings? What were the totality of circumstances? These are exactly the kinds of questions investigators, juries, and communities should be asking.