If the suspect started shooting at police first, he is guilty of attempted murder, since intentionally shooting someone with a gun implies intent to kill. It's not necessary to obfuscate the issue with "justified shooting" which inevitably gets biased by the officer's subjective fears, biases, and paranoia. If I wrote down rules on a piece of paper in my house stating cases in which I could shoot other people, you wouldn't give a damn about my use of force policies if I killed someone because I feared for my life. Why should we do that for police departments? Their use of force policies are arbitrary and not legally binding. It shouldn't matter one bit if a police department allows their officers to shoot a detained driver if he quickly reaches into his glove compartment. Murder is murder regardless of the bureaucratic justification.

I was saying just one thing, for example:

- Suspect allegedly robs a store. Store owner calls police.

- Police finds suspect, yells "stop, police!", suspect starts shooting at the police.

- Police fires back, kills suspect.

- After that, the shooting investigation starts (or atleast should start).

All I'm saying is, that due to suspect being dead, the trial for the robbery is not needed (if noone gains anything from that). Yes, shooting, attempted murder, and everything else is valid and should be investigated, go to trial, etc. But the robbery itself, in my opinion doesn't that much anymore.

If the suspect survived the shooting, then of course, investigating the robbery should be done TOO (checking security footage, search warrant to find stolen stuff, etc), next to attempted murder etc.

I think that in order to determine if a shooting was justified, you must determine if the victim was committing a crime. That should be the standard. If you kill someone who was not committing a crime, you should be punished, regardless of what you believed at the time or what police department policy you are following.