Actually, I can tell you that cops are NOT highly trained (other than SWAT and the like). When I go to the shooting range, cops are identifiable by how bad the groupings on their targets look. They tend to be the worse shots that the regular non-LEO's who practice regularly. Cops usually only practice when it's time for yearly qualifications. Yes this is a sweeping generalization, but it's usually true.
This is a misleading statement. In addition to being better trained in firearm proficiency/marksmanship than most of the general public, they are also more familiar with: firearm handling, defensive tactics, practical firearm defense, use of force procedure/legality, how to de-escalate use of force situations, non-lethal defense tactics, etc. Just the mere fact that the initial thread has been so thoroughly discussed/considered, would make it a hard position to defend should an actual shooting occur and charges and or trial follow. I would never want to be on the receiving end of a prosecuter saying something like: "you mean to say that you intentionally rode through a dangerous area and willfully and intentionally brought a firearm and discharged it in a public area, resulting in the injury or death of another person or bystander even though you could have simply chosen another route and avoided the likeliehood of said encounter entirely"? Nope, I don't need to run around shooting people or getting into gun fights to prove that I have the "right" to own a firearm.