We don't know anything for sure, and certainly not that. If the story is correct, he didn't even know exactly where the man was, and was simply firing his weapon blindly to scare him off. That's tough to support.
Look, I'm going to ask really nicely, pretty please, that you stop making strident and unsupported accusations about the police.
Those officers will probably have to account for every single shot each of them fired. If you've ever looked at an investigation scene (which this is or will be) the bullet strikes are all found and marked. It will be QUITE obvious how many shots the officers fired and where they went. The bullets can even be recovered and ballistic matched to which officer's gun fired each one.
And there's no point in lying about it. By nearly every measure I can think of, the scenario as given is a justifiable shoot decision. Mr. Thompkins probably didn't intend to shoot at the police, but the fact is (or at least seems to be from what we know) that he WAS shooting at the police. It sure sucks he didn't meant to, but the police didn't, very clearly, act inappropriately in response. Bad luck, but not wrongdoing.
But seriously, stop making these wild anti-cop accusations. It doesn't help us here, and it paints you in a pretty poor light.
Using hyperbole like this makes it look like you're deliberately missing the point.
I'd assume you've never been in a live-fire shoot house where there were friendlies mixed in with the hostile targets? Never realized to your horror that you'd just killed "people" you didn't notice before you fired? It's eye-opening.
YES, you are responsible for what happens to every bullet you fire. Know your target and what's behind it. Your target is Sleazy Eddie the robber, but if there's a group of kids playing on the sidewalk behind him, you'd better be VERY aware of what you're about to do. Nobody on the planet's going to give you a pass for killing one of them accidentally.