am not interested in the nitty gritty of the legality of what the cop did.
Then there is no discussion to be had. The law is the foundation of officer training and policy. To discuss the officer’s actions, we must first understand the legal climate under which he acted. He knows it: he has been trained on the law.
if you fear for your life then it is legally acceptable to maim the assailant. But to kill them I think is a step too far.
Under US law It is never acceptable to act with intention to kill or main the assailant. Having the intention of maiming the assailant is not self defense: it is aggravated battery. Having the intention of killing the assailant is not self defense: it is attempted murder.
The only intention contemplated by the laws governing the use of defensive force is “stop the threat”. The only valid purpose any imperiled person or other defender can have is “stop the threat”.
If they have time to decide between “killing” or “maiming” the attacker, the attack is not sufficiently imminent to justify any use of force. Their imperfect use of defensive force then qualifies as criminal. That they were attacked is only a mitigating factor; it does not exonerate the criminality of their actions.
I do not think the hoe is “reasonably capable of causing “grievous bodily harm””.
I think training that attitude into police would be a monumental mistake. Prideful, cocky, and overconfident in their own abilities,