Legal protections are physical protections. They're designed to let officers kill people if they reasonably perceive a threat. That's why an officer with a gun is much more protected than I am with a gun, because they can shoot and kill in situations where I can't.
You keep dancing around the main point here, which is that cops get different rules based on the premise that their job is extremely dangerous, but it's not the most dangerous job, and we don't afford the same protections to others with similarly or more dangerous jobs.
We could also expand to different classes of people. Women in service industries are likely to experience multiple assaults over their careers. Queer youth are very likely to be assaulted. Immigrants (especially women and girls) from poor countries are very likely to be assaulted. What about people with known violent stalkers, people in witness protection, etc etc. Should we train, arm, and shield them from prosecution if they shoot people?
Or what if it's situational? Let's say I see a group of cops attempting to murder a Black man (recall any instances you've seen in the news), I protest and insist they stop, I think I see one of the officers reach for their weapon, I draw and fire first, killing them all and saving the man's life. Do I deserve the same legal protection? I was doing what the cops are supposed to be doing: I ran into a high risk situation in hopes of defusing it.
I think you have to face the fact that the standard just doesn't make any sense, which is why cops in other western countries have much stricter standards than those in the US.
I would also go further and say the prevalence of firearms in the US makes these situations way more dangerous than they need to be. You're right that a lot of the things officers do can be fatal, and that's because the odds of whomever they're dealing with having a firearm are pretty high. Your guess is as good as mine as to why most cops don't support tighter gun restrictions though.
You keep dancing around the main point here, which is that cops get different rules based on the premise that their job is extremely dangerous, but it's not the most dangerous job, and we don't afford the same protections to others with similarly or more dangerous jobs.
We could also expand to different classes of people. Women in service industries are likely to experience multiple assaults over their careers. Queer youth are very likely to be assaulted. Immigrants (especially women and girls) from poor countries are very likely to be assaulted. What about people with known violent stalkers, people in witness protection, etc etc. Should we train, arm, and shield them from prosecution if they shoot people?
Or what if it's situational? Let's say I see a group of cops attempting to murder a Black man (recall any instances you've seen in the news), I protest and insist they stop, I think I see one of the officers reach for their weapon, I draw and fire first, killing them all and saving the man's life. Do I deserve the same legal protection? I was doing what the cops are supposed to be doing: I ran into a high risk situation in hopes of defusing it.
I think you have to face the fact that the standard just doesn't make any sense, which is why cops in other western countries have much stricter standards than those in the US.
I would also go further and say the prevalence of firearms in the US makes these situations way more dangerous than they need to be. You're right that a lot of the things officers do can be fatal, and that's because the odds of whomever they're dealing with having a firearm are pretty high. Your guess is as good as mine as to why most cops don't support tighter gun restrictions though.