To the contrary Dead, police officers and deputies are not trained to kill. The authority to kill rests with the state. Academies nationwide train recruits to defend life, property and of course, themselves. Furthermore, no one is hired as a LEO because the Dept. wants killers. Liability laws (and plenty of lawyers to follow up on Civil Rights claims) ensure that. Virtually all agencies (and I don't know of one which doesn't) screens their applicants with an entire battery of tests including a psychologicals. Agencies don't want killers and folks who can go postal wearing a badge & a gun. The careful screening (background) process eliminates most unsuitable candidates. Mind you, like anything else, a few do slip through the cracks and they can generally be weeded out during the academy or the FTO program or finally, probation.
Lest we think law enforcement is overarmed, having submachineguns and full auto rifles is nothing new. It started with the Roaring '20s and in response to gangland shootings of those days (BARs & Thompsons). Modernly, the equipping of law enforcement with rifles is in response to incidents like New Hampshire (wacko kills a couple of folks and then two responding officers), Los Angeles (two bank robbers wielding semi-automatic high power rifles) and now Colombine (two unhappy campers decide to take out the student body). In the above cited incidents, I think you'll agree with me that the officers should be equipped to respond to save innocent lives. A greater societal need to prevent further injury and loss of life enpowers an agency and its officers with the right to use deadly force.
