You don't know what you are talking about. You are suggesting that they continued to shoot him after he went down. I did not see any indication of that yet. You also seem to think that shooting a gun is like Hollywood portrays it, kind of like the good guy shooting the bad guy's gun out of his hand.

I could go on and on about how you are ignorant and shouldn't even be making such idiotic comments, but I am afraid that I would be letting my emotion dictate my words and end up disparaging you for being so ignorant. There is no law against ignorance, like they say ignorance of the law is no excuse in court. Instead of making such definitive statements, why not either be silent when you are ignorant of a subject or make it clear that you know nothing of the subject?

From what I read, and only what I read, if a person was carrying a gun with the appearance that he/she was intent on doing someone else harm, and it appeared that the situation of of exigent circumstances, a prudent person that had the tool to hinder or stop that person from doing mass harm SHOULD attempt to stop him, even if there was a slight chance of a bystander being too stupid to remove himself or take cover to keep from becoming a victim. So yes, based on only then information supplied, I believe that a COP or anyone else that was carrying should/would/could attempt to save the other civilians in the area. If your family was at that gas station and in harms way, I doubt if you would want no one to intervene. But, one can never tell when dealing with pacifist liberals.