So should we apply Occam's Razor at this point and consider the likelihood that both men incorrectly identified the other as a potentially dangerous threat? Raja was not in a police uniform and was not in a marked police vehicle. If the police description is accurate, Raja didn't see or even realize Jones was there when he stopped his car and must have been startled. But what actually happened next is what we don't know.
...
If Jones panicked and shot first, few would argue that Raja's response was inappropriate or poorly considered. But if Raja panicked and shot first, what then? It matters because earlier in the month two experts investigated the abrupt police killing of 12-year-old Tamir Rice, who was shot to death in a Cleveland park while carrying an air gun, and determined that the officer was justified. All that mattered in that case, according to these experts, was that the police officer feared a threat. That the threat did not actually exist did not matter. It is apparently reasonable for police to shoot to kill (according to these reports) on the basis of what they fear might happen.
But let's consider a hypothetical scenario. If Jones had panicked, shot first and killed Raja, would he have been entitled to the same defense? Remember, Raja was not in uniform and not in a marked police car. Is Jones entitled to the same authority to react from the fear of what Raja might have done? I suspect that very few people would defend Jones shooting first, and I particularly suspect that those who would defend Raja shooting first would be less likely to defend Jones shooting. This hypocritical transformation of fear into the justification for an acceptable response by police officers is contributing to the distrust of law enforcement officials.
