This is a stupid attitude. And it's just that - an attitude.
person running forward can do it alot faster than you can backup.
Why, certainly - if I entered the situation with my brain shut off (see my comment above).
It’s the citizen committing the act that is required to submit to the FIRST command of the officer to desist. Those officers gave multiple verbal commands to the decedent who decided the outcome.
What happens if multiple officers give multiple conflicting commands, as happened in the case of Erik Scott, and others?
Oh, that's right - the peasant dies. /sarcasm.
Don’t get mad at me about it, I didn’t originally state it.
SCOTUS did. SCOTUS also recognized that hindsight is 20/20 and that the benchmark for judging whether an officer’s actions wered correct is based on what another reasonable officer with similiar amount of training and experience would do in a similiar situation. Not what YOU would do, but what an officer would do.
The police also keep their own counsel on how to handle use of force situations which mean their instructors are almost exclusively police officers who have been to the mountain and seen the bear. This is done by design since any use of force judicial proceedings will most certainly attack the training of the officer. It would be embarrasing for someone to admit they had never themselves been in an arrest situation that resulted in force. Expert use of force witnesses are also almost exclusively former or active police officers.