How old are you? Because prior to 1985, when the Supreme Court decided Garner, it was not only Constitutional but rather common for States to authorize and for officers to use deadly force to capture fleeing felons who presented zero threat and who were running away. Yes, prior to 1985 and through most of our history, if an officer were chasing someone whom they had probable cause committed a felony, they could shoot them in the back.
It wasn’t until Garner that the Court put the brakes on that practice. So you must not be very old.
Looking at the world through the lens of case law seems to have distorted your view of reality.
To sum it up I was exactly correct on every point in this case. Mark stated there are many problems. First the officers were responding to a "property crime". No one had been hurt so there was no resonable expectation of violent threat. Then the officers confront the suspect from a tactically advantageous position of cover. The officer shouts to the suspect to "show me your hands" and the suspect immediately complied while holding his cell phone. The officer seeing the cell phone yells gun gun gun and almost simultaneously both officers immediately open fire and fire a total of 20 rounds. There was no pause from the officers at all to assess the threat, there was a command, suspect complies but officer thinks he sees a gun and both fire. Mark also stated the first officer yells gun gun gun but the other officer had a DUTY to verify the threat otherwise he is not authorized to fire. All officers MUST SEE and VERIFY the threat before they can use deadly force. In addition the officers had a chopper in the air over the scene.
Watch the show or catch it on youtube. Mark Furhman is a former LAPD detective and always takes a very open minded position but not in this case. He did not give these officers any chance of justifying their actions. This was clearly unjustified use of deadly force.