I'm not going to get into debate here, but guns can be lethal, and shooting in a crowded area can be extremely dangerous.
Anyone shooting in such circumstances better be prepared to justify their actions to the law and to society, irregardless whether they are police or not.
Was it worth putting bystanders lives at risk?
the shooting was terribly executed, but it was totally necessary for the cops to shoot. they approached the guy(who had already been told to them he had murdered a guy and had a gun) and he turned around and drew his gun aiming at the police. they were absolutely in the right to shoot him, its just how effectve they were at it that is in question.
FP, 90% of all shootings that occur in real life happen in close quarters, less than ten feet. That is the reason for 15 feet range marking. Accuracy on all bullets lessen at distance, especially handguns with the shorter barrels, shorter barrels equals less rifling in the barrel and less accuracy in the gun plus the effect of minor movement of the hand is exaggerated by the short barrel of a handgun. Naturally a rifle is much more accurate.
firstly, Ed that is entirely wrong about guns. They do not become more accurate with longer barrels. A barrel a few inches long is long enough(if using a proper twist rate) for the rifling to engage the bullet and spin it adequately. a gun with a 3 inch barrel and the same with a 6 inch barrel should be able to get similar sized groupings of shots.
the difference being that a longer barrel gives the bullet more time to accelerate, thus shooting faster, thus a flatter ballistic path. this means the bullet wont drop as much over a longer distance, but if properly trained for, compensated in techniques is not a hindrance to accurate shooting within the rounds capabilities. If the gun is aimed correctly to compensate for drop(necessary in any gun), the bullets should land in a similar sized pattern.
More importantly, the longer barrels can give a greater distance between the front and back sights, which can allow for more precise shooting.
regardless, training should absolutely include ranges out to 50 ft. As it is, their requirements are pathetic.
Have you considered the difference in firing at a piece of paper in a range and firing at a human being? Not only the difficulty of being fired upon yourself, having to control a weapon while trying to avoid being shot, but the possibility of taking anothers life. These police need reprimanded and maybe even fired for their choice of returning fire in a situation with so many bystanders present, not for their ability to shoot or their aim.
there is a difference, yes. but the only thing that you have left in a stressful scenario is the muscle memory and ingrained training from repeated practice. This doesnt happen from going to the range once a year and shooting 50 shots, which dont even have to be marked on accuracy. they are passed if the miss the paper less than 12 times. that is the equivalent of letting people drive semi trucks after showing they can start the truck in a parking lot and drive in a circle.