Now, take that same officer out-of-uniform and, all of a sudden, a whole new set of legal standards suddenly applies: ‘the obligation to withdraw’, ‘the necessity to seek a line of retreat’, ‘the castle doctrine’, etc. Inside the United States there’s clearly one set of weapon’s use regulations for law enforcement, and another entirely different set of weapon’s sue laws for civilians. (Even the term, ‘civilian’ is used derisively by many in the legal community.)
I understand your point, and agree (to a point) that it seems rather unfair. However, knowing those who work in the Law Enforcement profession; my educated opinion would be that since they're obligated to protect the public, whereas we (as CHL holders) are only obligated to defend ourselves, they (the LEOs) are given more room "legally" as to when lethal force is justified. Basically, here in PA, it's well spelled out in Crimes Code.