Comment Re:Seriously? (Score 1) 203
Which still makes me question: why 39 shots when the victim (allegedly) shot only once?
They don't have to start shooting back (certainly not 39 times). Maybe shoot once or twice, and demand the suspect to drop their weapons and surrender to them. As you say, they have no special forces training. So if the suspect doesn't respond, they take cover, keep an eye on the suspect, don't allow him/her to leave, shoot back only when absolutely necessary (e.g. when the suspect opens fire they may fire back), and call in the special forces - including a negotiator who can talk the suspect into dropping their weapons and surrender.
But of course they won't do that. That's going to cost a lot more than 39 bullets: the wages of these special forces people, the training costs, the court costs afterwards (a suspect caught life you'll have to put on trial after all - a dead one you just put in a grave), and of course the extra work for all those cops to do the paperwork in preparing for the court case. No, just killing your suspect is much quicker and cheaper. With the added bonus of being able to claim another victory in the "War on Drugs" and showing how dangerous those dealers really are, and how important it is to get more money to wage that war.