Thanks to commenter Matt who came up with this example of a cop who murdered a motorcycle rider because he refused to stop. I could quote from that article, but it's better to read the whole thing, because you must understand the underlying logic; how the decision is essentially mandatory by the court and perfectly logical. It made exactly the correct decision, given the premise and logic of the state and police forces. You see, nobody -- certainly not those intelligent judges -- would dispute various facts. There was no high speed involved. The police car ramming the motorcycle (twice) was a greater danger to the rider, the officer, and other vehicles than was the motorcycle's improper passing maneuver. The event for which the police car rendered chase had already past, so presented no further danger to anyone else. The federal appeals court ruled items 1 and 2 irrelevant, even though true. Yet, it's item 3 that holds the potential of this being a just killing; i.e., the motorcyclist is currently (i.e., right now) engaging in activities that present a real and present danger to others, within the context of what's going on (a busy roadway) and less violent alternatives...