Originally Posted by
flenna
Well that is another way of looking at it (and on the surface sounds right). The danger in it is that taking away “would a reasonable person have used deadly force” and replacing it with “was it necessary to use deadly force” is that now there will be a government bureaucrat determining if it is “necessary” in the aftermath of a shooting. Well, since the law of the land says LE has no duty to protect then will it ever be “necessary” to use deadly force to protect someone else? And once this is fully established it will be applied to non-LE, too.