rexkramer is correct. Attempted murder conviction requires proving intent. The fact that he took two shots suggests it was intentional, as may other indicators such as aiming. Both "intent" and "recklessness" are defined by state statute. Being convicted of (or charged with) recklessness does not mean there was no intent -- it may just mean they can't prove intent with the information they have. Judges and DAs aren't omniscient and except in rare cases are not actually present at the scene of a crime!

He shot at that cop to prevent him from doing his job. My guess is if he was running from the police and had a gun, he's a scum bag and deserves to be in prison forever.

You shouldn't shoot at anyone. But you especially shouldn't shoot at a police officer. It's unfortunate the officer couldn't shoot back. They are generally much better marksman and therefore would be more likely to hit whatever they were shooting at.

My guess would be that is probably because of a little concept called "intent". Knowingly fire at an officer who is chasing you trying to put you in jail with the intent to keep him from catching you (kill them)= intent. Fire down an alleyway at nobody in particular = wreckless endangerment, manslaughter, etc. Also depends on what he admitted to in his statement. Never mind though, this is Gazettextra, I'm sure this is just a vast conspiracy by law enforcement against the common man, forgot where I was for a second.