Livingston didn’t say if the man, who was 28, had a weapon when he came to the door, or what caused the officer to shoot the man. Even if you were innocent before the SWAT team showed up, threatening them afterwards will get you killed and no court is going to convict them. So far it is not "established" that the officer should not have shot the man.
It doesn't take more than a few minutes after the man was shot dead to know whether he had a weapon. Frankly, it doesn't matter why the officer shot the man so long as he hadn't threatened the officer. In the time it took me to write this comment, a clear determination of whether the officer abused his power could have been made. If he did in fact have a weapon, you could bet your ass the police chief would have confirmed that.
What exactly do you think this investigation is going to yield? "It looked like he may have had a weapon" or "He made a threatening comment"? Neither are reasons why the officer should have shot the man.
It took 6 months for a grand jury to exonerate another Wichita officer. http://www.texomashomepage.com/news/local-news/wichita-falls... The appeals etc took years after that. My point is, you don't let the cops make the determination about whether a cop is guilty. There are whole other layers of accountability.
Edit: and yeah I agree cops don't get convicted often enough. Either way a real investigation is going to take time.
Did it occur in a state where being in possession of a weapon inside your home is a crime? And if they felt threatened, it should be up to a jury to determine if it was self defense or murder based on why they felt threatened.
