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.
The victim was unarmed. What was he going to do? Beat the police to death with his cell phone?
The officers did not want to kill him. But they caught him after a chase. This is a very dangerous thing.
I'm not saying the police officers set out to kill the victim, in either case. But kill them they did.
Same principle here. The cornered criminal is much, much more likely to attack his captor than an unarmed woman approaching a police car.
But the cornered criminal was also unarmed. The cornered criminal didn't attack anyone. He had no weapon. Why did they have to shoot him? And if your answer is that they didn't know he was unarmed well then the cop in Minneapolis didn't know Ms. Diamond was unarmed either. Shooting an unarmed person who is not posing a threat to the officer is not justified, regardless of the circumstances.
The only way to assure his own safety was to immediately surrender.
Considering the incompetence of the police officers in question then you may be correct. That doesn't make it right.