Taking this rationale to its logical conclusion, a police officer would be required to wait for violence to actually occur before responding.  Imagine the scenario in which a civilian points a gun at a police officer&#x27;s head.  What course of action would you recommend?  Wait for the civilian to fire?  If the officer were to fire, would you say &quot;I feared for my life&quot; is reasonable?<p>Second, you&#x27;ve got a straw man argument here.  Police can&#x27;t shoot (de jure) when there&#x27;s a suspicion that maybe there&#x27;s a possibility.  In Texas (I imagine others are similar), deadly force is authorized [1]:<p>(A)  to protect the actor against the other&#x27;s use or attempted use of unlawful deadly force; or<p>(B)  to prevent the other&#x27;s imminent commission of aggravated kidnapping, murder, sexual assault, aggravated sexual assault, robbery, or aggravated robbery.<p>and,<p>(1)  the actor reasonably believes the conduct is immediately necessary to avoid imminent harm;<p>(2)  the desirability and urgency of avoiding the harm clearly outweigh, according to ordinary standards of reasonableness, the harm sought to be prevented by the law proscribing the conduct.<p>There&#x27;s a clear line here, and &quot;reasonable&quot; is decided by a jury of one&#x27;s peers, not the responding officer.<p>Reference:<p>1. <a href="http:&#x2F;&#x2F;www.statutes.legis.state.tx.us&#x2F;SOTWDocs&#x2F;PE&#x2F;htm&#x2F;PE.9.htm" rel="nofollow">http:&#x2F;&#x2F;www.statutes.legis.state.tx.us&#x2F;SOTWDocs&#x2F;PE&#x2F;htm&#x2F;PE.9.h...</a>