Answer to comment

In response to the comment from this post, Derfel Cadarn made this comment:

How were they to be run over while in their cruisers? 133 shots fired no return gunfire mentioned, should be fired for the poor shooting alone.What about reckless endangerment with depraved indifference.No possibility of collateral damage,oh that`s right those other are only serfs.

I was going to answer in comments, but the length of my reply requires a post. I will answer his comment once sentence at a time:

How were they to be run over while in their cruisers?

Who says they were in their cruisers? How are they supposed to arrest a car thief without getting out of their car? Even in the police remained in their cars, are you maintaining that a person in his car cannot be killed by someone else who is also in a car?

133 shots fired no return gunfire mentioned, should be fired for the poor shooting alone.

Two misconceptions for the price of one. The first one here is that you assume that deadly force is not justified unless someone is shooting at you.

Perhaps you do not understand what constitutes deadly force. Deadly force is defined as: force that is likely to cause death or great bodily harm and includes, but is not limited to the firing of a firearm in the direction of the person to be arrested, even though no intent exists to kill or inflict great bodily harm; and the firing of a firearm at a vehicle in which the person to be arrested is riding.

When anyone is being attacked by a person using deadly force, the person (and yes, cops are people) being attacked has the right to respond with equal force. The police in this case were being attacked by a person employing deadly force, and had the right to respond in kind. Since under the law, trying to run someone over is considered to be deadly force, they respond with deadly force: firearms.

The law is the same in this case as it is for you and I:

A person is justified in using force, except deadly force, against another when and to the extent that the person reasonably believes that such conduct is necessary to defend himself or herself or another against the other’s imminent use of unlawful force. However, a person is justified in the use of deadly force and does not have a duty to retreat if He or she reasonably believes that such force is necessary to prevent imminent death or great bodily harm to himself or herself or another or to prevent the imminent commission of a forcible felony

As for your claim that 133 shots shows poor marksmanship: How many of those bullets hit the car? How many missed? How many of the shots struck the car, but were deflected by the car and missed the driver? How many shots hit the driver, but did not stop his attack?

How good of a shot are you? Are you experenced with firearms? You do realize that a bullet is not a remote controlled punch or a magic talisman? This is real life, not the movies. Guns do not instantly stop people with one hit.

What about reckless endangerment with depraved indifference.

What about it? Missing when shooting at a person does not automatically mean that you met the definition of reckless endangerment. The term you are looking for is culpable negligence.

Culpable negligence. Each of us has a duty to act reasonably towards others. If there is a violation of that duty without conscious intention to harm, that violation is negligence, but culpable negligence is more than a failure to use ordinary care for others.

For negligence to be called culpable negligence, it must be gross and flagrant. The negligence must be committed with an utter disregard for the safety of others. Culpable negligence is consciously doing an act or following a course of conduct that the defendant must have known, or reasonably should have known, was likely to cause death or great bodily injury. See Fla.Std.Jury Instr. (Crim.) 827.04.

 Good luck with that one.

If anything, the decedent is the one at fault here, as his actions were the direct cause of the police having to fire. See Green v. State, 545 So. 2d 359 - Fla: Dist. Court of Appeal, 2nd Dist. 1989. 

No possibility of collateral damage,oh that`s right those other are only serfs.

There are numerous self defense shootings where a private citizen is not charged with missing his target. No one else was hit, so that is a non-issue.