@3/4:

And yet, in how many instances have we heard - and seen - cops NOT shoot people holding firearms? So apparently, it CAN be done.

Initially, there seems to have been a lot of excuse-making by the police office in this case, far from the conclusion of any investigation. Most concerning, though, is highlighted in the overall description of the effect of the sheriff's response to the home (from a caption on one of the photos which accompanied an article in another publication): "Renee Davis was five months pregnant when she was killed by King County sheriff's deputies checking on her welfare Friday night"

One wonders if the welfare of the family will be at all improved by Renee's death. Her own welfare was certainly not.

Somehow, we and our public servants need to get past the sort of shoot first and ask questions later mentality that these circumstances represent ...

@8 I'm not a maker of police tactics. But as public servants, they need to put a rest to unnecessary shoot first, ask questions later practices ...

@8:

Given the outcome it's pretty obvious the late Ms. Davis was exposed to the absolute maximum amount of risk to which one can be exposed.

Cops nationwide never seem to have a problem disabling patriots holding guns without killing them.
Did i say "crazy white fuckers"? I meant to say "patriots".

@9, facts2supportURpoint wrote, "do the officer's not have the right to defend themselves and the children in the home from someone who has a gun, while they do that welfare check?"

Lemme get this straight: You assert that someone having a gun warrants self-defense up to and including killing the person who has the gun. Is that right? Not defending oneself against someone using or threatening to use a gun, but just having one. You believe that police officers have the right to defend themselves--with deadly force--against the having of a gun?