Nice commentary, but I was asking specifically about the "he attacked first and, ideally, by more or less surprise!" part.
Yes, I know! I was merely pointing out to you something that every frontline police officer in America is only too well aware of (Don’t you watch any of the televised police video programs?):
CQB pistol gunfighting occurs in an enveloping environment that is most often timed in MILLISECONDS, not in seconds, and certainly not in minutes! Jim Cirillo definitely realized this; and, from what I’ve been able to observe, so do all of the other televised pollice officers who respond to possibly violent and dangerous situations on TV.
(What is one of the first things that real live police officers do while they are being videoed approaching dangerous, potentially life threatening situations? ANSWER: They either draw their pistols, or else they rest their gun hands on their gun butts—Right!)
NOT in one of today’s civil courtrooms but, for sure, out in the streets and neighborhoods of today’s, godless, and excessively violent world in which most citizens have to live: CQB pistol gunfighting is, without question, a proactive and not a reactive lifesaving endeavor!
Every life-threatening CQB pistol gunfight may be pragmatically divided into two distinct events: The first event is the actual gunfight itself. If that gunfight is survived then the second event is the political theater which is sure to follow. (Obviously a gunfighter has to survive BOTH events in order to be considered successful.)
Consequently, I think it’s reasonable to say that both you, and I are referring to exactly the same present day socio-political quandary of which the original question: ‘How many shots are fired’ is no more than a trivial non sequitur.
At the present time there is one socio-political standard for police executives, and there is another legal standard for armed civilians. THIS is the reality of the modern, carefully contrived, and socially engineered political world in which we live—A world which is almost totally dominated by the omnipresent and utterly pervasive, all powerful organized news and entertainment media!
America’s guiding social influence used to be sacred Judeo-Christian scripture (the Holy Bible), right! Well, those days are now gone. (At the present time the current Speaker of the House Nancy Pelosi, herself, has at least twice repeated pointed remarks to this effect on national television.)
When I initially read several of your remarks these (1) tactical, and (2) social contradictions were obvious to me; and I was reminded that it is impossible, absolutely impossible, for any man to serve both God, and Mammon.
Regardless of whether or not he’s wearing a police uniform, either someone is an effective CQB pistol gunfighter, or he is not. The real question is (as you have already implied): Has that person—that survivor—behaved acceptably and in accord with prevailing social mores, or not? In other words, and by intellect inference, has that person behaved MORALLY, or not?
Well, . . . any such determination would, of course, depend upon whatever social drama, whatever televised theater, the organized news media works to contrive and present. (There is physical reality, and there is human perception which are, as you might by able to appreciate, not always identical to each other. The latter being far more plastic in its available interpretations than the former in its breadth and complexity.)
Here in the present example which features the CQB gunfighting behavior(s) of former police officer Jim Cirillo, according to previously published accounts: For a number of years the NYPD sent the Stakeout Unit out after the very worst of the most violence-prone criminals in the 5 boroughs.
It is a documented fact that the NYPD’s Stakeout Unit often waited in hiding for days at a time until one of these armed and exceedingly dangerous criminals would finally appear. When one of them did Jim Cirillo, who was frequently the principal gunman in the group, would step out of hiding, issue a loud verbal command for the criminal to surrender; and, if the subject did not immediately comply, Cirillo would rush forward; and, at the first sign of aggression, begin shooting!
More than being merely didactic and not having a wealth of other CQB pistol gunfighting examples to study, I always found Jim Cirillo’s gunfighting methodology to be especially interesting.
(Why his book on this subject was taken out of print I find difficult to understand. Neither do I see any of Bill Allard’s commentaries around anymore; but I guess, with self-defense being such an unpopular topic nowadays, information like this would tend to disappear from public purview.)
As a younger man Jim Cirillo appears to have relied upon his superior marksmanship and natural gun handling abilities in order to stop violent criminals from carrying out their evil deeds. Then, as the years passed, Cirillo began to use an entirely different engagement technique.
Instead of using sighted marksmanship Cirillo began to use instinctive aiming. He also preferred to work at very close range, and frequently rushed in at his targets while he was firing. (His mental discipline and ability to focus intuitively must have been phenomenal!)
The other thing I’ll add to these personal observations is that, while he was using revolvers (Cirillo always carried two handguns.) he tended to shoot those revolvers ‘dry’—Apparently he often found it necessary to do this in order to decisively stop the gunfight!
I do not know, and I have often wondered if Cirillo used these exact same techniques when he switched from using those 38 Special revolvers to the subsequent Glock Model 19 which the NYPD began to insist he should carry?
I do know that Jim Cirillo did not trust a 12 gauge riot shotgun and double-ought shells to consistently stop a gunfight, and he preferred not to use one. It has also been repeatedly implied that Cirillo did NOT care for using his issued Glock Model 19, either!
(An individual preference on Jim Cirillo’s part which I also share! None of my uncles who were, for the most part, active United States Marines wanted anything to do with 9 x 19mm pistols, either; and these are the men who originally taught me how to handle firearms long long ago, way back, when I was only 9 years old.)
Good one! Perhaps you need to define the terms of your logical definitions more accurately? In today’s America (which ain’t your father’s America), a person can be only one of two social entities at a time. Either someone is an effective self-defense gunfighter, or he is a passive and compliant social politician. You cannot be both at the same time! 
