Maryland State’s Attorney Marylin Mosby is showing some real moxie in her willingness to hold cops accountable. Certainly, the swift decision to prosecute Baltimore police officers for the death of Freddie Grey was huge, and now it’s followed up by her announcement of the prosecution of Officer Wesley Cagle.

The officer, 13-year veteran Wesley Cagle, is accused of shooting Michael Johansen, 46, in the 3000 block of E. Monument St. after he had been shot by two other officers. Cagle was charged with attempted first-degree murder, attempted second-degree murder, first-degree assault and second-degree assault.

Mosby said the first two officers were justified in shooting Johansen because he refused to heed commands and made a move toward his waistband.

But Cagle “on his own initiative” came out of an alley, Mosby said, stood over Johansen, called him a “piece of [expletive]” and shot him in the groin.

The expletive would be “shit,” and the bullet would be .40 caliber, for those who keep track of such things.

While Leary and Smith were covering him with their guns drawn, Mosby said, Cagle walked in and stood over him with his gun drawn. The man said to Cagle, “What did you shoot me with, a beanbag?”

According to Mosby, Cagle replied: “No, a .40-caliber, you piece of [expletive],” and fired one shot.

But what’s not immediately apparent from the announcement is that Cagle’s shot was the third bullet to land inside Johansen’s body.  There were two that preceded it.

At the time of the incident, the Police Department said the officers fired because they believed they saw Johansen holding a “shiny object,” and that he was shot at least once in the upper torso. Police did not mention the gunshot wound to his groin area.

Mosby said no weapon was recovered from the man.

Or, as anyone without government training in the use of the passive tense might say, Johansen was unarmed.

The scenario presents a fascinating juxtaposition in the distinction between a righteous shoot and the bullet that buys an indictment.  The first two shots took cover in the fact that Johansen had not yet been subdued.  There he was, fresh off a store burglary (which shows that he was both a bad dude and someone undeserving of sympathy and, likely, deserving of a shot or two) when confronted by the officers.

Mosby says he didn’t comply with commands.  While an interesting commentary, it’s of little significance since we don’t shoot people for that. Cops might be miffed that their commands weren’t immediately heeded. It’s one of those things that annoy the hell out of them and creates what they perceive as a needlessly awkward situation.

But still, we do not kill people because they didn’t heed commands.

Then Mosby adds the kicker, that he either “made a move toward his waistband,” whatever that means, or the cops thought he was holding a shiny object.  He wasn’t. We know that because there was no shiny object recovered, which would have been highlighted in the story about their bravery in the face of shininess.

But he had no gun. He was unarmed.  He was one of those really stupid criminals who, when staring at two cops with guns pointed at his body, decided to make a “move toward his waistband” because that was the best idea he could come up with under the circumstances.  What could possibly go wrong?

While it’s true that while defendants are presumed innocent, they are not presumed intelligent, there isn’t really any explanation for why Johansen, faced with a couple of unfriendly guns, would do anything to draw their fire.

But Johansen isn’t exactly a prime poster boy for outrage.  After all, he was a masked burglar, with a nasty rap sheet.  It’s hard to get all worked up about him sucking up a couple of bullets. Plus, he didn’t even die.

On the other side, there are two police officers who uttered the words that permit universally approved use of deadly force, “he made a move toward his waistband,” even if there was no reason in the world why he would make a move toward his waistband.  It could happen, right?

Who you gonna believe, the cops or some piece of [expletive]?

Mosby will be lauded for prosecuting Cagle for firing that third bullet into Johansen’s groin.  It was one bullet too far, even under the most loving views of police use of force.

But before we build her a statue, there remains a question as to why those first two bullets, fired at an unarmed man because some cops said magic police words that allow them to shoot to kill anyone they choose, were given a pass.  Had there been no third shot by Cagle, nobody would have given those first two shots a second thought. And with Cagle, well, they get swept behind the really, really bad third shot.