I've done the reading. I don't like this whole police "belief" about being in danger. Let's follow that through with that though.
Bad news. You don't have to like it. I'm not a fan of how it plays out either. But you not liking something doesn't mean that what you do like is the law.
So, since he could believe that he was in danger, it can be said that he is "justified" in shooting said person attempting to enter the chamber unlawfully. There is no camera to show shooting. Hence, he doesn't get arrested or charged based on his belief.
I explained, in part, what the standard means, and it's more nuanced than that, but that's the idea. But to be clear, I'm nearly certain the outcome (him not being charged) is political, and not truly based on any legal standard.
Since she did not say she felt in danger of said person with a warrant for his arrest and evading arrest, there is no justifiable reason for her to use a gun. She didn't intend to use her gun but did. It resulted in the unintentional death of an individual. Unitentially killing someone is considered manslaughter. Hence she is charged with manslaughter.
Correct. Well at least close enough for argument sake. See how that's very different from the Babbitt shooting? See how you can draw different conclusions when you actually look at them instead of making generalizations and simplifications?