My point was the police shouldn't jump straight to shoot to kill when they draw firearms, they should until all options have been expended shoot to dibilitat, I've heard great police stories of them not jumping straight to shoot to kill, he'll I saw a news story where to guys with assault rifles robed a bank and killed a few people (both civilian and police) and the police stuck to shooting with the aim of debilitating them over killing them, the job of the police isn't to kill suspects it is to capture suspects so they can go through the proper legal system, ending another human life should never be done unless absolutely necessary as a last resort after all other options have been extinguished, police in Australia are very heavily ingrained to apprehend as a primary even after having deadly force authorisation, it doesn't always work but what's the point in having courts and jails and prison sentence standards for assault and public rampages if you never intend to actually apprehend the perpetrator, I'm all for the police, they have a extremely hard and dangerous job I could never do, but in some country's and individual cases they need to be taught and reminded that they are meant to apprehend suspects over killing suspects in all but the most extreme cases, here in Australia they get drilled very heavily on using minimal force necessary to stop a situation, there are very minimal cases here where police officers kill someone even in situations where the suspect is armed and dangerous
And my point with the case 1 and case 2 was that case 2 used the correct procedure that I agree with while case 1 used excessive force, I have nothing against the police using firearms on suspects, I have a problem with them jumping straight to shoot to kill when it's also possible to shoot to debilitate