Disregarding all the parts of your story that don't make sense, or are downright very uncommon with home invasion defensive shootings (ya, I doubt any of this happened from how you wrote this story) - your point about self defense not being the same power as the police is a little precarious.
Police shootings are almost always defensive shootings. Maybe you might disagree with the rationale behind the need to apply deadly force in some specific situation - fine - but that doesn't suddenly mean police have some 007 "License to Kill" or anything.
The police are flatly not allowed to indiscriminately shoot people - just like a citizen isn't allowed either. There's very few police shootings when compared to the volume of interactions they have nation-wide every year. When there are shootings, they are reviewed to determine if there was a crime committed - and punished if there was.
Perhaps criminal review and punishment need to be stepped up? But just because there's some agencies that don't hold some officers to the same standards as everyone else doesn't mean it's like that everywhere.
Call someone out for using a fake story about killing another human being just to further a point?
To anyone experienced or knowledgeable about defensive shootings and home invasions - the story above reads like the author watched too many action movies.
Positively ID'ed an armed intruder and then proceeded to have a complete conversation with said armed intruder in the middle of the night? Asked the armed intruder to allow him to "ziptie" their hands? The armed intruder doesn't run away at first signs that someone is home or awake, and still doesn't run when the occupant reveals themselves to be armed? Then proceeded to have a shootout with the intruder and somehow placed two accurate shots on target from across a room or hallway? All with adrenaline and a cocktail of other mind-altering, body trembling, dexterity-inhibiting chemicals surging through their body? Total BS.
Then went to jail for a week and couldn't apparently afford bail even though they then spent hundreds of thousands on an apparent criminal investigation for suspected murder (says they might still be in jail to this day) even though there's an armed dead intruder lying in the room after a forced entry? In a "Castle Doctrine State"? Ya, that doesn't happen either.
Most people can't speak coherently with all that going on, let alone fire accurate shots either. It's a myth "you can't miss" with a shotgun. At average room or hallway distances, the spread is about 5 inches or less with 00 Buck, and usually those shots are fired from the low-ready or hip positions due to the immediacy of the situation. It's pretty darn easy to miss in a situation like that.
The entire story is either grossly exaggerated, or completely made up. All for what? To appear to be arguing from some position of authority and make people accept OP's argument as fact? That's appalling, and it's things like this that make responsible gun owners look bad.
Police shootings are almost always defensive shootings. Maybe you might disagree with the rationale behind the need to apply deadly force in some specific situation - fine - but that doesn't suddenly mean police have some 007 "License to Kill" or anything.
The police are flatly not allowed to indiscriminately shoot people - just like a citizen isn't allowed either. There's very few police shootings when compared to the volume of interactions they have nation-wide every year. When there are shootings, they are reviewed to determine if there was a crime committed - and punished if there was.
Perhaps criminal review and punishment need to be stepped up? But just because there's some agencies that don't hold some officers to the same standards as everyone else doesn't mean it's like that everywhere.