I will never agree that five bullets to the back could ever be justified.
Really?
Two officers approach a suspect. The suspect faces directly away from one officer, left shoulder angled toward the other, produces a firearm and fires it toward the officer to his left.
You would say that the officer behind the suspect can not return fire because he may hit the suspect in the back?
There are times when a civilian could conceivably shoot an aggressor in the back and be justified. It's not hard at all to imagine any number of scenarios involving police officers.
This is really simple. The dead guy acted like a jack-ass. If he hadn't, he wouldn't have been shot, hell, the police would have never been called.
Were there mistakes made on the part of the officers? Probably. Who bears the ultimate responsibility? The guy who started the whole thing.
HE causes the commotion.
HE got the store evacuated.
HE acted in a manner that required police presence.
HE drew a gun, holstered or otherwise, and pointed it in a manner that was perceived as threatening.
HE is dead. C'est La Vie.
Point a gun at cops and you'll probably be dead. It's one of the simpler rules of life, really.
Now the father says that the STORE bears the brunt of the responsibility for his dead son. Give me a break. His son bears the responsibility.
Don't
Act
Like
A
Jack-Ass
When
You're
Carrying
A
Gun.