[Zeppo]

Your proposed policy is very relevant because it is a test to see if you can state a practical policy which would have prevented the situation you ctiticized. If you can't, your position is only theoretical or worse, hypocritical.

No, not at all. Do the LEO departments have practical policies which would have prevented the situation that I criticized? I'd bet that the answer is 'yes'. Again, if you were to look at the statistics on police shootings, and the count of rounds fired, and the count of rounds that hit, you will undoubtedly find that it is rare for individual LEOs to shoot until all of their ammo is gone. It would be even more rare to find that every single LEO shot until all of their ammo was gone. So, in practical terms, there do seem to be LEO department policies in use under which disciplined and professional LEOs do not find it necessary to do what evidently was done in this situation.

[osideplanner]

You believe the sheriff was trying to be factual when he said "it's all the rounds we had." You believe a SWAT team has 110 rounds of ammunition. If you don't know what policy would prevent the "problem" you are citing, then you need to sit back and let the other posters splain it to you.

BTW what action was taken by the SWAT members that you think was illegal or against policy?