CAN OUR JUDICIAL SYSTEM NOT SEE THE FOREST FOR THE TREES?

O.K. you tell me what's wrong with this scenario. A man is high on drugs, hallucinating, paranoid and obviously mentally unstable by everyone's account. The police officer who shot him multiple times sucessfully escaped any blame whatsoever because he was able to prove that the victim (who nearly died) was irrational to the point of advancing on an armed police officer while holding two knives in his hands.

We have read previously in the Record that Ryan Arcon was only given a 1% chance of surviving the shooting. Obviously he spent months in hospital recovering from his life threatening injuries. Now that he has recovered he is facing five criminal charges including assaulting a police officer and assault with a weapon. The jury are currently deliberating. Deliberating what exactly? Are they deliberating the defendant's sanity at the time the police officer was forced to shoot him? Exactly how obviously mentally ill or incompetent do you have to be to advance on an armed with a gun, trained individual, while you are holding knives?

If Mr. Arcon has been treated for his mental instability and is capable of rentering society without putting others at risk, then that should happen. Why did this case ever go to trial? Does anyone believe that Mr. Arcon had calculated intent at any point in time to do physical injury to anyone? If you have to charge him for anything then charge him with drug possession. These other heavy duty criminal charges are massive overkill. Doesn't everyone think he's already paid an incredible price for doing drugs? The title of today's article in the Record is "Jury weighing evidence at trial of man shot by officer".