They did it allegedly because "she walked to another home and pointed her weapon at them", so it's not "for no reason". It may not be a GOOD reason, but it's certainly a reason. It's not like they just randomly showed up to her house and shot her.
But the thing is, she hadn't fired any shots. To my knowledge, officers of the law may not use violent force unless the suspect has used it first and has put lives in danger. So while it wasn't for 'no reason,' it certainly wasn't for a good reason.
That is not correct. A person does not have to have used deadly force before action can be taken. If there is apprehension of imminent harm, action can be taken. If the harm is not deadly (or reasonably could be deadly), deadly force cannot be used (If a person is slapping someone or about to slap someone, police can intervene with force but not deadly force); if the harm is deadly, the police can use deadly force. So if there is imminent deadly harm about to occur (in the police officer's reasonable mind), the police can use deadly force.
