Originally Posted by
Thermal
Agreed that we are all commenting without enough information (with the caveat that a hugely important justifying element has no earthly reason to be omitted):
Would you find it reasonable for a uniformed and armed police officer, considering their line of work, to shoot first and ask questions later?
If you will indulge an anecdote: I live in a beach town whose population goes up tenfold in the summer, mostly with renters. Each and every year, at least one walks right in my front door, misremembering what house they rented (it happens). I have walked into what I thought was my empty house and found strange men in my living room. Guess how many I killed?
There's the rub, isn't it.
You are hypothesizing that she went "Dirty Harry" and knew immediately that there was a "bad guy" in the apartment, entering as a cop who was going to put down the criminal. Thus your rhetorical question. Of course "in the line of duty" shoot first-ask questions later is unjustified.
I am offering a counter-hypothesis; that she had no idea anyone else was in "her" home and was startled when the legitimate occupant (who she would resonably see as an intruder) reacted aggressively (hypothesis) and shot him. In that scenario her reaction could be reasonable- in spite of its tragic outcome.
The first time someone walked into your home were you startled? Did you attempt to scare them off by making yourself seem as threatening as you could muster?