I would normally be amused over your insistence that any disagreement with you must be from lack of knowledge on my part, because your terminal narcissism is too tempting not to point out.
But the problem is that I know that that is just a cover story for what your really are - a disinfo shill pushing bias under theoretical interpretive possibilities.
The fact is that the video clearly shows a murder, and the known supporting info does not support any of your theoreticals, is enough for now. It got the guy arrested, and it supports Occam’s Razor and plain old common sense - of which you think non-cops have none. The rest of your sophomoric fantasies can wait until you find a shred of supporting evidence for them.
No, you misinterpret what I said. I’m not referring to the known elements of this case. I’m referring to your categorical statement in principle, absent other information.
That is, you saying this:
“The legal criteria is as follows: A trained police officer calmly shooting an unarmed man from 30 feet who is running away eight times in the back is murder one”
...is, on its own, not necessarily a true statement. The actual legal criteria are such that there are circumstances where such a shooting would be legally justified.
If you don’t believe what I say is true, say so.
...also, circumstances where it would be illegal, but not necessarily murder 1.