People like to post news stories of police officers and security guards being shot in robberies as evidence that armed Joe Civilian will get shot first in a robbery. Those stories presented simply do not support that Joe Civilian in plain clothes will get shot first because he is open carrying. They do support the fact that when a robbery of a high value target is planned - it is planned to shoot the armed security guard first and police are shot to prevent apprehension and arrest.
Most violent crimes happen against individual persons or small stores. Real world evidence suggests that the majority criminals either leave individuals or stores where the owner is known to be armed alone or run at the sight of a gun.
Anecdotal evidence may be used to establish a "majority" and I'll even buy it for the sake of discussion. It still doesn't counter the arguments I laid out in my first post about trade offs.
You can make the decision to make that trade off but I'll still say it's apples and oranges at best. By lumping all violent criminals into one category and arguing for the passive deterrence strategy as a winner in a "majority of cases" you're simply failing to address a remaining significant minority of cases where it doesn't work AND introduces a huge disadvantage. I'll pass thanks.
And the burden of proof is on you to show how an open carrier being shot first (as in your post) with a uniform is somehow a lower bar to clear. These cases are exactly the minority we both acknowledge that lead me and many others to avoid OC because of the enormous downsides in those cases.
I'd argue it is a higher bar because:
-There are greater consequences for shooting a LEO, not less
-LEOs and their ilk are arguably more likely to act not less, because they're duty bound. You can not simultaneously argue that that is why they get shot BUT somehow a civilian is able to passively deter and discourage the same criminals in comparable situations by displaying a gun even though they're probably less likely to use it since they aren't duty bound. You can't have it both ways. (not to mention there's a huge leap in your assumption that a serious criminal in the midst of a big robbery will even know an OCer isn't an LEO)
For those reasons I assert that documented preemptive killings of uniformed officers open carrying are not only applicable to the situation being discussed but actually constitute a very high quality example due to being a higher bar to clear. If you have an alternative explanation for why it's irrelevant please share.