When you write "this specific case" you are talking about a guy that got shot by the police.
And when I write "this specific case" I'm talking about how the Sunnyvale Police respond to a 911 calls about some guy who claims to have killed someone in his house.
Because we're talking about different things, the responses don't make any sense to the other person in the conversation.
No, that's not the thing, and you don't get to characterize what I mean in order to support your rhetorical argument. I'm disappointed that you chose this approach.
I most certainly am talking about how the police responded, and saying that it makes rather more sense when you include the full context of the call.
You originally wrote Sunnyvale police drove their tank over to a house where someone had called in reporting a murder, they asked the person to come out and then immediately shot him dead. You left out the fact that the caller identified himself as the person who had committed the murder, and you've been trying to change the subject ever since.
I have no problem with the police driving an armored vehicle* to an address where the caller has identified himself as a murderer. In a situation like that there's a high probability of getting shot at and I don't expect the police to go in defenseless. This is totally different from an innocent third party calling in to report the discovery of a murder.
I'm questioning your challenge of the available facts in this specific case, based on other information that you have chosen not to reveal.