Self-defense shooting is based on threat assessment, not assessment of innocence or guilt. That is a straw man argument.
You simply confuse and conflate multiple issues because you want to hate cops and blame them for everything. You are biased and blinkered and not using logic to think through the logic of use of force.
It has an established logic, until you understand it, you really have no business criticizing and debating about it. You are more interested in insult than information.
Quite to the contrary, you want to label everyone that thinks that the police must obey the same laws as everyone else as a "cop hater".
I notice that you didn't answer the question concerning whether you think any other citizen would have walked away without at least an arrest in the listed instances.
Whether the police are to be held to the same standard of law and justification as everyone else is very much the point, hardly a straw man argument.
Indeed, if the point of having a police force is to increase safety, don't you think it logical that they might be expected to come prepared to such calls? You completely ignored that question previously.
i.e. I call the police and tell them that my neighbor bill is off his meds and sitting on his porch with an ax. They come out and as they walk up he starts trotting toward them with the Ax. They then shoot him 22 times in self-defense. What exactly was the point of calling the police? I could have shot Bill from my front porch and saved them the trip. Would you not at all question why they didn't come prepared with a shotgun full of non-lethals and a stun gun? Is their lack of thought not responsible in any way for Bill doubling as a colander?
Case in point. Barney comes in the front door and there is a two year old holding a sawed off shotgun. Should Barney:
A. Shoot lower than usual.
B. Shoot more than usual, as the vital area is small.
C. Scream at the kid to drop it, and if he doesn't respond instantly revert to A&B.
D. Take the additional risk to protect himself and get the shotgun away from the toddler, knowing that there is a chance he may be killed, but realizing that the toddler is someone he is supposed to protect.
IF, big IF, you chose answer "D", why would you say that was? Could if have anything to do with innocence?