The police are different from you and I. They are agents of the sovereign, and they are responsible for enforcing the laws. They don't have additional "rights" in the "human rights" sense, but the law treats them differently. It has always been so, and it will always be so.
That's not true in a great many jurisdictions. I'd like to see a LAW from your jurisdiction that has a carve out for Law Enforcement as relates to the use of Deadly Force, if it exists.
Otherwise you're maintaining a common fallacy, which is fine. Lots of people *believe* as you do, but when asked to show a law where there's a difference actually written into the law books, they can't.
I suspect you won't look, but if you do, let's see it. Because it's VERY rare.
Most of my frustration lies with people who don't understand the legal issues and twist the facts to suit their preexisting agendas.
Do you understand the legal issues? Let's see a law that relates to use of deadly force in any circumstance, that has special wording for how it should be applied to Law Enforcement vs non-Law Enforcement.
In most jurisdictions, you won't find one. Citizens are equal. Some just have a tough job called Law Enforcement.
In a similar vein, show an actual law that allows LE to speed, run red lights without their lights or sirens going, or any typical traffic violations -- you won't. But they do it every day of the week in most jurisdictions. There's always an EXCUSE and Judges and prosecutors often let them use those excuses, but they're breaking the law, regularly, nevertheless.
I had a cop blow past me on the freeway doing 100 on Friday. No lights, no sirens, endangering everyone. Maybe he was rolling to cover a partner in trouble at a domestic, or maybe he just wanted to blow off some steam at 2AM.
Nobody is going to pull him over or enforce the laws of the city he was doing it in, as they are written. In that city officers may not use lights or sirens if it will endanger someone, as in, needing to come up quietly and not escalate a domestic violence scene, for example. I doubt him running 100 MPH for ten miles on the Interstate was done to remove danger from anything going on.
In that municipality I could easily have turned on a scanner and checked to see what he was being dispatched to.
In others, they've removed the ability for accountability by encrypting all radio traffic, even mundane stuff.
Let's not even go into how dangerous unmarked police vehicles are these days with impersonators. There's a few circumstances where they're actually needed for officer safety and a whole lot more circumstances where they're just used for mundane stuff a marked cruiser would be fine for. And much much safer for the public they serve.