He killed a CEO not a cop. If he'd gone after the police they'd likely have burned that McDonald's to the ground with him inside (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Christopher_Dorner)

I’m sure the police have orders to “take him alive.”

It doesn’t matter what the brass say when giving orders. If the officer says the magic words during debriefing (after the shooting), he gets off scott free.

What are the magic words? I don’t know them, but I know that the lawyers who work for police unions know them and the trainers who train police officers drill those into the heads of officers.

The core problem with the jurisprudence: if a reasonable officer had a fear for themself or for members of the public, then fatal shootings in the line of duty are usually justified. The objective facts at the scene don’t matter; only the officer’s perception. If only all citizens were given the same rights…

The magic words are, "I feared for my life," or "I feared for my safety."

They have body cams don't they? If they just shoot a suspect and the body cam suggests no threat to the officer's life, they're in trouble.

If by trouble you mean "get a pension to compensate them for the metal harm they suffered from the shooting" then you're right. (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Shooting_of_Daniel_Shaver)

“They’re in trouble”

Did you not understand my post, or do you not believe my claim?

The objective facts (as established by a body cam) matter very little, only a good faith belief that “I feared for my life or the life of someone in the public”.

Why? The burden of proof is “Innocent until proven guilty” and like I said, the onus is on the prosecution to prove that the officer’s statement that “they feared for their life” was a lie at the time of the incident. That’s extremely difficult to prove, especially when an officer has been on the job for a while and has been conditioned to use the right words to CYA.

No penalty for just turning it off.

Are they? Paid leave for a few years while it’s investigated, then back to work.