That’s called SYG immunity.
Bright called it, “Qualified Immunity”. When a police officer allegedly violates your constitutional rights and you sue, that is the legal hurdle you must overcome, thier QI.
They do not assert SYG in such a charge, as killing someone, they argue it was permitted by the 4th AM, as I said, cf. Tennessee v. Garner.
I always assumed that, on paper at least (an in most jurisdictions), a police officer has no more, or no less, rights than any other citizen, when it comes to deadly force. And that they could only use deadly force (or any other kind) in a situation where any regular citizen could claim self defense.
The fact is this quite clearly not the case in practice, and police get away with using force (lethal or otherwise) in situations that would cause a regular citizen to face serious charges. But I thought that is more to with the way the legal/policing system is set up, not the letter of the law.
Am I wrong?
Even in non-SYG states, police officers have no duty to retreat. In fact, it’s generally their job NOT to retreat but to go towards the violence.
Is there really a state where I can rob a bank and make the cops outside all run away by threatening them???