First off, I think the decision to not bring charges against the officers is the correct one, but I think the prosecutor, in characterizing the situation, is engaged in a bit of salesmanship (especially the part about these guys' records...important to know, but it's mixed in to sort of suggest that their record was known to these cops as they were deciding whether or not to use deadly force...it wasn't).
1. My guess is that father and son Frasure are engaged in activity that is quite common, actually. "Street" distribution of assets when grandma dies...a race to her home and start grabbing stuff...saves Probate expenses. If grandma's assets are simply the "stuff" in her home, getting lawyers involved is to be avoided
2. Like the Tamir Rice case, the police are acting on good faith based on the information they've been provided by dispatch (in Rice, the police are told by dispatch..."a man at the playground threatening with a gun"). Many in our national media go straight to "12 year old boy with a toy gun" when the cops were told something far more ominous. The fact that the Frasure's aren't stranger burglars (though they probably are some kind of burglar)...the cops are entitled to act on what they've been told...in the pre-flight stages of the encounter.
3. Lots of criminal cases involve allegations of what people do with their cars when they encounter police. The pi $ $ ed off cop is mad someone recklessly drove off and the case frequently becomes a felonious assault (deadly weapon-auto) with a peace officer spec when it appears that a cop fairly easily stepped out of the way...and no one got hurt. The cop is a fisherman with one on the line and is frustrated that one got away. Cop is mad, catches the guy, goes to the prosecutor with F-1 charges...maybe it's more akin to felony Failure to Comply (F-3).
4. There is something in the law called the "fleeing felon rule". It is a statement of principle about the use of deadly force. It's not "neat" and limits the use of deadly force...put simply; in a felony arrest
, if you run, that ALONE doesn't entitle a cop to shoot you. I think it covers these cops. However, what I saw on this video doesn't convince me that the COPS were in danger for the THEIR lives (maybe); but rather, a fleeing felon (their belief, whether correct or not, doesn't matter) in a vehicle was a danger to the community...other drivers. Put another way, I think these cops are (probably) entitled to shoot this guy because he's a fleeing felon acting dangerously; I'm not convinced their lives were in danger (shot comes in from the side)...