Based on training and policies and procedures. LEOs are very familiar with the minimum response concept. 16 rounds is a gross violation of that concept in this case.
...
Is there a specific policy you can cite? The departmental policy of the officer in question would be good.
This is the Chicago PD’s Use of Force Model:
AE is, apparently, correct, though I would use the term proportional response, i.e., an officer is allowed to enter the fray at the level he needs to, he doesn’t have to walk through each lower level if the situation warrants going immediately to some higher level.
But notice the objective is control of the subject. When you’ve got control, you don’t take it any further. If you do, the reasonableness standard will be applied, which, as I noted earlier, is an objective standard, and therefore NOT dependent on the officer’s personal opinion of his own danger, but the reasonableness of his judgment.
Furthermore, notice that even the amount of tissue damage is to be weighed in the decision. This is not a standard that would be applied to a relative amateur, a private CC carrier, so yes the standard is different, in that even though the design of the law is to give the police the ability to do their job, nevertheless they have to be even more careful than the rest of us in the application of lethal force. If an officer cannot walk that walk and chew that gum at the same time, he or she does not deserve to wear the badge of trust we give them.
Peace,
SR
At my agency minimum response with the handgun was two rounds to center mass. Most departments would have similar policy.