[quote=Zendric]It indeed would be nice if one could target for non-lethality in all cases, but it doesn't always turn out that way. I don't know if this officer was an incredible marksman, or only attended the required departmental training shoots, but in either case you have to think of aiming a firearm, especially a handgun in an adrenaline filled scenario, as a cone of fire. The slightest twitch, from a shaky hand to your heart pumping blood through your hands, can angle the barrel a couple degrees in any direction from where you are aiming at, and over a distance even as short as 30 feet it can matter, throwing the bullet off many inches. That's why you aim AT the target in general, not at the target's _____, so you can guarantee that you hit the target somewhere and stop them.[/quote]

Good points, there's not really much I can offer in response to that.

[quote=Imperfectionist]Also, I will accept your opinions on how difficult it is to shoot a gun (in Canada, Germany, Niger or otherwise) once you've both joined the police and gone through basic firearm training.[/quote]

Have you gone through basic training? I have just as much reason to believe you don't as you do that I don't at the moment.
Plus, if debates like this could only be limited to cops there really wouldn't be much point in these debates at all.

Having basic training be needed before weighing in on the actual case? Obviously, police cases should never be tampered by novices. But an online discussion/debate that in no way will effect the actual outcome of the case? It's an unnecessary pre-requisite 

[quote=So Boerd]An argument has a conclusion. I was making an observation.[/quote]

Did you observe a lack of training in his life?
Did you observe his records and find nothing indicating such experience?

If not what you made wasn't an observation but a remark.