Comment: Wouldn't a more sensible pair of guidelines be...

(See in situ)

In reply to comment: Rule #1 (see in situ)

Wouldn't a more sensible pair of guidelines be...

Wouldn't a more sensible pair of guidelines for a professional keeper of the peace be: 1. aim a weapon only at someone whose death, while hopefully avoidable, is a scenario that is at least preferable to what would happen if no weapon was aimed at them; 2. don't stop shooting until the THREAT is NEUTRALIZED? You'll notice the second one reads the same as yours, but I intend a more literal reading: the threat isn't the person, but his or her actions, and neutralization isn't death, but the person ceasing his or her threatening actions.

It might help to have a look at how police officers in some European countries would deal with situations like this. Sure, the citizenry there is in principle unarmed, and I understand that police officers will have to resort to stronger tactics when a suspect carries a firearm, but that wasn't the case here. A myriad different deescalating tactics seem to have been feasible here, but it looks like the option of deescalation didn't even cross the officers' mind.

A home owner who shoots to kill in a case where a non-lethal response is an obvious option? Not necessarily to be praised, but at least understandable. You've got an intruder in your home; that leads to very understandable instincts of anger and panic, and you didn't make the choice of having someone invade your home. But for a professional police officer, I think PROPORTIONAL self defense should be a high priority. That's not what I see here. I would not want officers like these be in charge of enforcing the law where I live.