fastbolt, you also wrote:
And that statement was a non sequitur, because an armed robbery is not a property crime. In the case under discussion, the bad guys were committing an armed robbery, not a property crime.
Burglary is a property crime.
Automobile theft (other than carjacking) is a property crime.
Shoplifting is a property crime.
Vandalism is a property crime.
Yes, I did. I did so, however, thinking of instances where robberies occur where victims aren't shot (or stabbed) but only their property is taken. Still a Part 1 serious crime, granted, and reported as such, but it's still one in which nobody has been seriously injured or killed. Just threats of force and fear (sufficient to meet the statutory requirements).
How about instances where the suspects haven't shot anyone ... right up to a point where someone may decide to draw down on the suspect, or start shooting at him while he is still in close proximity to the innocent victims.
I'm not thinking of incidents where a suspect has already shot someone, or is threatening and reasonably appears to be about to shoot someone.
What if the suspect hasn't shot someone, though? What if trying to immediately shoot at him in the midst of the victims results in the suspect reacting and now deciding to start shooting?
Also, I wasn't able to speak to the specific instance of the barber shop, since I didn't know how that incident unfolded regarding when & why the suspect fired. Instead, I was speaking in regard to the examples of a couple of tragic instances of armed robberies which I mentioned having learned of as a young cop.
In both of those incidents the armed off-duty cops decided to intervene before the suspects had shot anyone, and a gunfight in the midst of victims ensued. In both of those reported cases family members of the off-duty cops were shot and killed by the suspects. I imagine both of the cops have repeatedly asked themselves if their loved ones might still be alive if perhaps they'd used a different tactic.
Yes, decisively acting to protect the public safety when an immediate risk to the public presents itself is expected of LE (unsurprisingly often written into GO's and policies), but so is thinking to attempt to use tactics that might mitigate introducing the increased risk of starting a gunfight in the midst of innocent victims. Never an easy judgment.
Just because we may lawfully be carrying a gun, that doesn't mean that starting shooting at a suspect is necessarily going to be the best response or answer to the situation, even if the use of deadly force would otherwise be considered justifiable.
People with the best of intentions can make the wrong decisions about when to use deadly force and thinking that it's justifiable, and sometimes good people who make the wrong decisions face criminal charges for it. (Even LE, given the advantage of initial and recurrent training and legal updates, can make mistakes regarding when & how to use deadly force, as some recent tragic incidents have demonstrated.)