The off-duty officer, under attack by a man with a contact weapon, fired twelve shots into the single attacker before he fell. There is speculation that tend or eleven shots might have, sufficed but no one could have bet on that.
The perp had previously attacked two other people who hd been able to escape. The perp then attacked the off duty officer, who was forced to fire while backing up.
I wold have been toast. I cannot run backward as fast as did the defender, and my carry pistol has a lower capacity.
I do not know what a "normal everyday person is" once he is attacked, but using "probably not needing" as a basis for decision-making does not reflect prudent risk management.
Very true.
And therefore, both the risk of getting shot, and the likelihood of needing to employ deadly force, are higher than for the non-sworn officer.
But both the civilian and the officer are limited to using deadly force to defend themselves or third parties only.
The difference is that if an assailant departs, the officer must pursue and apprehend. He may not use deadly force to do that, but a subsequent defensive encounter may occur. That's why LEOs always carry reloads.
Why would that matter?