Because, as this thread demonstrates, some posters will defend anything a government employee does, whether justified or not, because of his occupation.
It matters to them—matters so much some of them are willing to malign the victim and members of her family.
Take away the government employee aspect, and would he have as many fervent defenders? I submit not.
Well, that's one way of looking at it--another way would be that boneheaded comments about cops generate some push-back.
Fact of the matter is, you appear to be objecting that others don't show your bias. So let's set some ground rules, if you wish to go forward.
1. off-duty cop is involved* in an accidentIt really is mysterious that you wish to make this about "some posters [defending] anything a government employee does." Really.
2. young girl is injured
3. off-duty cop is injured
4. off-duty cop is attacked by girl's father
5. father is shot dead by off-duty cop
As an aside, I didn't pick-up on that vibe . . . but I may have missed it. Can you refer me to some specific comments? Unless you've confused the claim that the shooting was justified with a blanket assumption that doing so makes one an uncritical defender of government employees. In which case, don't bother.
_____
*I stipulated earlier that we can assume, for the purpose of argument, that the off-duty cop was negligent.