I live in a rural area and I regularly talk to people on my walk. For me they are strangers but apparently I talk to a lot the them regularly. I don’t remember faces/names easily so often they address me like a friend and I am clueless.

That is not how it is done. It is the police chief saying, “We investigated ourselves and (found no wrongdoing)/(everything was within policy).” Occasionally it will be a prosecutor saying something along the lines of, “There isn’t enough evidence to get a guilty verdict so we are not going to pursue this.” If it gets past both of these the judge will dismiss the case for some random excuse or they do a bench trial where instead of a jury the judge just decides the cop is innocent. Very rarely it will make it to a jury trial and the cop will lie his ass off and never get charged for perjury.

Hypothetically, yes there are justified shootings. Deciding if a shooting is justified should be done by a jury though, not an internal investigation. All lethal use of force cases should be prosecuted and guilt/innocence should be decided by a jury. The use of lethal force justification being decided by a judge/prosecutor/police is short-cutting the legal standard that any other victim would see their perpetrator held to and is therefore a 14th amendment violation.

All the police have is unsubstantiated claims from a 911 call. Thinking that is enough for lethal force is why SWATing happens. Fake 911 calls about serious crimes trying to get the police to show up and murder people. The job of the police is not to determine guilt or innocence, nor do they punish, those are for the judicial branch.

Depraved indifference homicide.