There is a reason why the Supreme Court has ruled that the police may shoot fleeing suspects only if they are representing a threat to the life and safety of the officer or of bystanders. It's because police do not have the power to be judge, jury, and executioner for anyone they choose. There was no justification for shooting Scott. Zero. Zilch. Nada. The reason why he is dead is because he ran into someone who was trigger happy and likely should not have been a police officer to begin with.
The legal standard is “serious physical injury.”
...
Garner states that deadly force “may not be used unless necessary to prevent (an) escape and the officer has probable cause to believe that the suspect poses a significant threat of death or serious physical injury to the officer or others.”
The 1985 SCOTUS ruling that narrowed the fleeing felon rule does not refer to “bystanders”. The word used is “others”, which would seem to include people not in the immediate vicinity. And the legal standard is not 20/20 hindsight but the officer’s reasonable judgement at the time. From what I’ve seen so far, I don’t think Slager had probable cause to believe that Scott posed a threat of serious physical harm to himself or others. But given the adrenaline of the moment and the fact that Scott had assaulted him and apparently taken his weapon, I’m not sure of that beyond a reasonable doubt. I just don’t think it’s as clear cut as you’re making it out to be.