Are there no shotguns in those police cars? It's trivial to hit what you want with a long gun at those distances.
There may, or may not be...fortunately it's completely irrelevant. No, it isn't trivial (and I say this having competed in national shooting competitions). Not in combat it's not. If you're a top .01% competition shooter firing at targets, yeah, maybe. Remember though that if a cop misses, someone innocent may very well die (or MANY someones). If a target shooter misses they get silver instead of gold.
Even with just handguns, while you can't expect or require a random cop to make accurate shots, if there is a good shooter on the scene they should be allowed to exercise judgment. Isn't it common sense that some damage to the guy is better than killing him for sure? I'm pretty sure I would hit a knee on a stationary target at 10 meters with pistol, and I'm a lousy competitive shooter.
Most cops aren't combat specialists. In fact, almost none are. That's why counties usually pool resources just to be able to field one special response team.
Moreover exercising judgment is EXACTLY what they're doing by killing threats rather than fucking around. They're keeping the public safe from lunatics who no longer are able to live in the world, and they're doing it in the safest, most efficient way possible.
I don't think that's common sense, I think it's bullshit pansyism. If someone is a threat they no longer should be allowed to live. I don't want them captured and tried, I want the evil, worthless, cock-sucking son-of-a-bitch dead on the street. Then I want a keg-stand set up over his smoking body for a block party to celebrate the improvement of society through the actions of the cops. Just because YOU are some kind of queesy pussy doesn't mean we should all suffer.
Oh, and in combat they're seldom stationary, and neither are you. Then add windage, distraction, obstruction, pass-through collatoral damage, etc.
I understand that legalities in a specific place might require different kind of action, but the practical side is sound.
If good guys were getting hurt, they were doing it wrong. I'm not talking about self defense, I'm talking about proactive use of force. If the situation turns into self defense, then by all means as many shots as necessary to center of mass.
You're right, they WERE doing it wrong...they weren't trying to put the fuckers down INSTANTLY and COMPLETELY when they were a threat, which is what's required of EVERY combat situation, no matter what. It is the ONLY way to have a fight, EVER. Anything else gets good people hurt, and lets bad people live.
Since switching to more rational combat mentality law enforcement injury is down...some years more than 40% a year. It's been dropping steadily since making the shift, proving that they're doing some things right, including with dealing with dangerous situations.
Police almost never has to shoot anyone in Finland or Sweden etc., either to kill or to disable. It's not just a question of how aggressive the suspects are, but also how the situation is handled. Cops have the right to defend themselves as vigorously as needed in any situation, but professionalism requires actively and carefully avoiding any situations where they might have to. For instance, unless there's an urgent reason to, they won't go anywhere near an armed suspect.
NEWSFLASH: This isn't Finland or Sweden. We don't have chocolate molesters here, we have sociopathic supervillains with arsenals to rival a third-world nation. America isn't 400sq' of stoned, homogeneous happy peasants. We have no infrastructure, we have no economic sustainability, we have no social welfare. What we DO have is hundreds of millions of people barely able to survive and on the absolute edge of a complete breakdown with no support system to see them through it. We have an entire nation who not only distrusts their government and the police, they fucking HATE them and think they should die in a fire (LITERALLY). This is NOT Europe, and if you don't GET THAT then you need not talk about how to deal with ancillary problems.
Look, I get the impression that you really just lack the knowledge of the situation from the standpoint of those who have experience in it. You're trying to apply European micro-nation socialized perceptions to something so foreign that it might as well be another planet with another race entirely. You HAVE to view things from the point of view of those involved, NOT from your own remote and protected perceptions.