I have a number of Massad Ayoob books on my library shelf, and he is a good writer and I have often and still do recommend his books, now that all aside.
There is a pungent aroma of attitude here without justification. You make the assumption he is a Government employee and you could be correct or you could be dead wrong, and since Jeremy has yet to state his employment status, we can only guess, and this morning I don't feel the need to stick my foot in my mouth, thus I will not venture a guess as to his employment status.
You obviously have not been in a firefight and until you are alone with one or more poor excuses of human beings trying to kill you for no good reason, you can never understand this scenario, and like most everyone take wild guesses. The shooter set the rules of engagement he attempted to "murder" me thus rule are now in play, and I am forced to play by "his" rules. Out in the desert at this close a combat range one has only a couple of options, and that's to engage and remove the threat, or wait till he circles around me and shoots me in the back. I am glad for you that you would just sit there hoping the foreign invader, felon, murderer, and drug runner wouldn’t try again to murder you. But where I come from this is called a “fools folly”. It is so quaint that some keyboard commando who has only seen a gun from the safe side, and has not had to deal with people intent on murdering you, or having to recover from having a bullet dug out of you.
You will also note the OP never mentioned the Murderer, drug runner, Felon and foreign invader didn’t throw down his gun or make it known his intent at some point was to NOT murder. He in fact kept the rules of engagement intact as he originally set them, as full out combat.
I stated what would happen if he engaged me, and I stand by it and my past does not contradict me.
You may wish to surrender or wait till he decides once again he has a clear opening to finally complete his mission to MURDER you. I wish to be alive and NOT a fool.
So keep running your mouth assuming things you have not proved, make inane attacks on people and force your standards on others. But you best believe this, once you draw a weapon on me the rules are set and unless you throw it down as quick as you drew it, you will quickly find out if there is a GOD and a Judgment for your acts, I am betting there is.
I love how these keyboard heroes try and set standards for others they can not meet themselves. And being that I am one of those who will quickly call out official misdeeds and behaviors, I can in no way expect anyone much less a Police Officer or other Law Enforcement Officer to just stand there and risk being killed by a “known” shooter who just seconds before made his intentions extremely clear that he is trying to Murder that Officer, just stand there and take the bullets intended for him or her. Only a complete fool would demand such and a fool with MURDER in his own heart. As much as I beat up on the Law Enforcement community even I can not muster as much hate as you have, to think the way you do, much less write it here for the world to see. Your true colors have shown well.
QFT
Jeremy05 wrote, "In the one second it takes to draw and fire, most peoples minds are made up as to their next actions." This is crucial to Jeremy's justification to shoot.
Massad Ayoob, who testifies on behalf of wrongfully accused shooters, including police, explains something entirely different. Ayoob explains that shooters shoot bad guys in the back because they were already firing at the bad guy when he was facing them, the bad guy turns very fast to avoid the shots, and the defender doesn't react to the turned bad guy fast enough, meaning the shooter can't stop shooting fast enough, thus you end up with hits on the bad guy behind the mid-line (vertical centerline on the sideview of a person). Basically, action beats reaction. The bad guy turns (action) in reaction to the defender's shots, and the defender can't stop shooting fast enough (reaction) to prevent side shots and back shots.
This is way different from Jeremy's justification where the time frame is longer. Its one thing to fire one or two more shots rapid fire. Its something entirely different to draw, present, aquire some vague sight picture, and fire. The time frame is much more compressed in the Ayoob example.
Then Jeremy goes on enforce his alteration: "My Answer. Shoot him until he is no longer a threat. In my opinion he is not Running away, he is running for cover so he can clear a jam or shoot at me from a better position."
Jeremy just told us he plans to suspend judgement and shoot whether the person is running away or running for cover. Shooting him until he is no longer a threat, even if he wasn't one at the time Jeremy started shooting; even if Jeremy has to pre-suppose he is a threat in order to possibly "make" him one when he isn't.
Unless Ayoob has published more, Jeremy's "justification" is a twisted version of a natural action/reaction sequence. I'm sure Ayoob will appreciate it.
Glad to hear government agents are so careful with the law. And, are inventing reasons to shoot people.
QFT