As I said to before, if your going to change the story to fit your argument then dont waste your time. They did not breach with bullets. He shot an unknown target.
Then I expect you to do the same, the facts of the story are these:
The cop was in the home illegally
The shooter had legal justification to shoot
The jury found in favor of the shooter
End of story.
There’s something you need to understand in order for you to grasp the arguments that are coming against you.
The shooter did identify his target, as someone who had
no lawful business being inside his home and thus in the commission of a crime. “knowing your target” does not require one to get on a first name basis with the person inside their home after dark, it requires that, to the best of your ability, you identify that the target is not there on legal business. The shooter did that, because the police officer was not lawfully there. This is a far cry from the guy that shoots his teenaged daughter that has a habit of sneaking out and coming home at odd hours; the resident of the property had no reasonable expectation that anyone would lawfully be on his property, after dark, without notice or his consent.
The shining of the light into his face is not the act that justified the shoot, in fact, it’s what nearly cost the LEO his life (aside from him scaling a wall and breaking and entering into the shooter’s private home) because it made it near impossible for the shooter to positively identify his target beyond: they are not lawfully here, they have broken into my home and are in my doorway. “Knowing your target” does not require one to assume all intruders are legally there, nor does it require that one ask the person what they are doing inside the home before resorting to the option of self-defense because the time it takes to do that can (and often has) get one killed. As a private citizen inside of his or her own home, they are not required to potentially risk their own safety in order to double-check that a person that is reasonably presumed to be in the home illegally is actually there with ill intent.
Likewise, if a plain-clothes LEO pulls a gun on someone but does not identify themselves as a police officer, and that LEO gets shot, the shooter is in the right. We are under no legal obligation to do a background check or ask twice before shooting. The legal requirement is on the law enforcement officer (or in the original case, the intruder of the home) to identify themselves and declare that their actions are legal and they are on official legal business.
The cop was shot in the back! Nobody has giving a logical explanation to how he was shot in the back while shinning a flashlight throught the window. If you dont see something wrong with that picture then fire away
The shooter fired multiple shots, the LEO was running for cover and returning fire. If there was anything sinister involved, the jury would have not acquitted the shooter. Next.