Yes, but also completely irrelevant. In both cases the victim was unarmed, there was zero threat to the police officer's life and safety, and yet they killed the person. If you're saying that fleeing was grounds to shoot him then why did the officers wait? Why not shoot him once he started running? If suspected criminal activity is grounds to shoot him then why didn't they kill him on sight? The fact is, in both cases, the police killed someone unnecessarily. If you and I had done it we'd be in jail awaiting trial. Why should police be different?
No, it is not irrelevant, and you say there was no threat to the officers' lives, but in Sacramento there is no proof of that.
The officers did not want to kill him. But they caught him after a chase. This is a very dangerous thing.
Have you never caught a wild animal by cornering it? They fight like demons. Even a rat is dangerous, where I have a 100 to 1 size advantage.
Same principle here. The cornered criminal is much, much more likely to attack his captor than an unarmed woman approaching a police car. He had been trying to elude them for quite a while and they have no way of knowing he was unarmed, but they did know that he was dangerous. Just because he had run and capture was imminent. The only way to assure his own safety was to immediately surrender.