What's the difference? Suspects don't care about collateral damage so they engage in reckless spraying of the area. The difference is that the officer should have had training that properly prepared him for his violent encounter. He should have hit! Yet we see in both qualifications and actual shootings that a significant number of rounds miss their mark.
There is no excuse for an agency to not properly train its troops. No excuse. Not lack of funds, ammo, range time, or lack of qualified training personnel. No excuse! No excuses are allowed for officers either. Sustainment training is your responsibility. You gave up the right to be unskilled in your TTPs when you took this job.
Not Me and Not Here
Why would officers that lack ability not avail themselves of training if it's made available? I've seen officers with marginal to poor ability fail to show up to open range sessions with ammo provided and then struggle to display minimum performance abilities (qualify). Why? I believe that these officers simply cannot fathom that it (something bad) will ever happen to them.
After all, they qualify each year, isn't that enough? "I'm not one of those gung-ho gun nuts. I got a life!" they say. Forgetting that having a life requires life saving measures - the time to learn CPR is prior to your loved one having a heart attack, not, "Wow, I should have learn how to do that better or paid more attention in first-aid class."
Trained responses in our tactics, techniques and procedures and especially in our skills for dealing with violent encounters, are not an option. They are indeed the life-blood of how we will react in actual violent encounters. Study, train and learn them and then sustain your abilities with continued practice. No excuses accepted - here or on the street!