[quote=@Sanctus Spooki]
My whole question is did he even actually point the gun? It was the SWAT team that showed up and discovered the gun on him, and that reported it was in his back pocket. If, for example, the wife of Greg Hill had entered the garage from inside the house (plenty of assumptions here) and moved the gun to his pocket, then I feel she would have been charged when they fingerprinted. I would still like an explanation as to how, after shooting him in the head, he decided he should put his unloaded gun away.[/quote]

None of that is in the press, so *major shrug* IDUNNO. This was tried twice and the jury heard everything we can read and more, and they're in unanimous agreement. I don't think it's unreasonable, at this point in this specific case, to go with that.

[quote]Looking at them a bit closer, it seems almost every picture actually has the garage door slightly open to elevate the apparent level at which the shots were taken. That last shot (I'm assuming it's the last shot or these police officers should have their guns taken away based on inability to aim) to the bottom is clearly excessive, there's no way he though he was shooting his foot or something. It strikes me more as a cop doing what he's told is the best result (I forget the exact phrasing but essentially it is better for the force if when they shoot someone, that someone dies)[/quote]

The lowest one logically is the first shot, because the door was closing during the shooting. Again though, the whole sequence of events and all the ballistics were presented at trial(s) and administratively by IA. 

[quote]Also I wouldn't necessarily call the guy an asshole. He was drunk as fuck.[/quote]

I think you're misreading me there -- I'm speaking broadly with that aside. Lots of assholes DO point guns at cops, and I don't think that should be a guaranteed payout for the asshole. 

[quote]If someone was banging on my door -extremely aggressively I would guess if his music was that loud- I might grab a bat in a similar state (I'm assuming he didn't hear, or they didn't announce themselves, I know police wouldn't be screaming "Police!" Around here for a noise complaint.) If he did retrieve his gun, and interpreted a threat outside, he would already have drawn it (remember btw he never loaded it, that says quite a bit about the man's character, plenty of actual assholes walk around with a loaded gun and "+1 in the chamber").[/quote]

Making a lot of assumptions that aren't in evidence here.

[quote]Imagine drawing a gun, and upon opening your door the first thing you see is a police officer. Your first thought would probably be something along the lines of "Oh shit I'm about to die."[/quote]

Not at all, but that's part of the problem. I have no idea how to correct the perception that "cops are here" = "I'm about to die" for minorities. Because historically speaking they're not wrong, but also that very perception itself perpetuates the problem. I don't know how to fix that.

[quote]Was he brandishing a gun? Debatable. Should he have shut the door? Obviously not. Was there excessive force implemented. Without a doubt.[/quote]

That's not what the grand jury found. That shouldn't close the book on the case or anything, but there ought to be [i]some[/i] doubt at least.

[quote]When you speak about precedent, this case is absolutely terrifying. The court found 0 excessive force and that Hill was 99% responsible because he was [b]intoxicated[/b]. Using this as precedent any drunk belligerent assholes could be filled with lead. For example saying "Fuck you" then turning and running from a cop for public intoxication (Stupid fucking idea, I've seen it enough times that this freaks me out) and because it's dark out and the cop can't see every clear detail, he claims to see a gun (cellphone) in his hand and opens fire. In both situations the victim was clearly trying to hide/escape - even though hiding in your garage when they are outside is pretty stupid.[/quote]

Here's where we're actually more okay than you think. The precedent here doesn't say that at all. The precedent here says "In the event of a clean shoot, the police are financially responsible commensurate with their role in the shooting." In this case, they also ruled that the shooting was nearly entirely Hill's fault (not an easy thing to rule, and it's even harder to see through emotions with half the evidence and a media circus, but they got there anyway), and therefore the penalty is so insultingly low. I would've rather seen it tossed out -- but as precedents go, this one's pretty fine actually.

[quote]So all a cop has to do now is say he was afraid (In this case for his partner)? A police officers job - one of them- is to handle scary situations with a level of calmness and composure.[/quote]

I mean not to be cold, but a headshot through a closing door with a gun in your face is pretty composed.

[quote]If I had encountered these officers when I was covered in blood after my friend had an accident, I would be dead today.[/quote]

That's not in evidence.