A cop is assumed to have received more training than a civilian.
A cop is expected to know non-lethal means of ending a confrontation, and it is further assumed that in order for him to resort to lethal means he (or she) would have exhausted those means.
A cop will also expect a close investigation of the facts of the case, and that is expected to temper his response.
That’s the theory.
important point is cops can shoot to wound OR shoot to kill.
civillians just shoot to stop the threat. whether the criminal’s wounded or dead isn’t a decision a civillian makes beforehand, either one is just the consequence of atopping the threat.
as a civillian you never shoot to wound or do a warning shot. in either case, if you can do either one of them, you don’t need to shoot at all.
A cop is a civilian.
A cop is expected to know non-lethal means of ending a confrontation, and it is further assumed that in order for him to resort to lethal means he (or she) would have exhausted those means.
A cop will also expect a close investigation of the facts of the case, and that is expected to temper his response.
That’s the theory.
A cop will rightly expect near instantaneous exoneration if he has used the proper verbal formula, "I felt threatened," no matter what the circumstances were or what witnesses sae.
That is a lie. Not a theory.