Firstly all of the facts are out. The only thing that isn't is the verdict by the cops own internal investigation. From all of the eye witness and the statement from the chief in the press conference they know what happened and have even released cctv footage.
The Police in the US use their cars as a shield when in armed situations. That's a fact look it up. Its not just some Hollywood thing. It's their first line of defense. So regardless whether bullets penetrate it or not that's not the point. They had potential cover in the interim to assess the target.
Judging the fact that no shot was fired at their car as they drove up even though the guy was in a "stance" gives you an indication that it may be ok to use it.
Come off it they are trained to kill or neutralize. The wording on their training goes "two to centre mass" and if need be "one to the head". you say it yourself that will kill most people.
No one is asking them to pretend its a movie and shoot legs or arms but shooting someone dead right away is clearly not a good approach.
I have no idea what you are trying to say about the Australian police. They are clearly trained no to shoot first. They always pull their batons first, pepper spray or taser next then gun based on the situation so you are off. Look it up there are plenty of documentaries about how they teach cops.
Your last paragraph just contradicts your overall stance because clearly they did none of what you are mentioning as you yourself said they got out and fired because he was crazy and with a gun. That was based on eye witness reports i am guessing and not their own knowledge or assessment.
Ironically your last paragraph is what most of us want to happen. For them to properly assess the target and assess what they could do before firing their weapon.
What other options based on fact, experience and other events of similar nature.
None of that occurred here. four of them rocked up and opened fire with no words or no thought of talking or disabling him by any other means.
