Wasn't the offender (no license, active warrants) trying to flee the scene? If so, the rest is irrelevant.
No, it is not irrelevant. It is against protocol to fire at someone fleeing in a car. That's the case in almost every police department in the country, and has been in most for a long time. Because when you do so, not only do you risk your shots going through those moving windows and richocheting off the moving metal and hitting innocent bystanders, you risk the person you are shooting getting hit and then driving even more erratically, getting feet stuck on the gas pedal if it kills them, and you put everyone in a large radius at risk by shooting the driver.
Three weakness or reasons for overturning:
Judge allowed jury to hold the pistol. The defendant had it in her hand for less than one second before she fired. How long did the jury members hold it?
What grounds would that be overturning?
Judge referred to jury as "heroes" after the verdict. Sounds like bias.
That's not grounds for overturning. Juries are often thanked, especially in contentious trials, for their service. The jurors in the Rittenhouse trial recieved similar praise from the judge, I didn't hear you complaining then.
Three: The offender who was shot put another officer in danger by trying to put the car in gear. This is an automatic annulment of defendants actions as being criminal.
Nope. The officers were able to easily step back. Indeed it is policy to do exactly that, and to not fire on a fleeing car. It is not remotely an 'automatic annulment of defendant's actions'. She handled a firearm in a dangerous and negligent matter. A person died as a result. That's what she was charged for, and that's what she was found guilty of.
Sounds like the offender was privileged. This is no good in our justice system. I rust this case.
Gibberish.