[Gay State Conservative]

The problem is that to make the shooting legally justifiable you have to demonstrate *danger* at the instant the gun was fired. Not one minute or three minutes earlier.

Not entirely true.Research the SCOTUS decision in "Tennessee v Garner" (1985) and you'll find that you've missed something rather important in the statement quoted above.I'll give you a hint...your use of the words "instant" and "earlier" is where you've gone wrong.

[Sherman Logan]

“We conclude that such force may not be used unless it is necessary to prevent the escape and the officer has probable cause to believe that the suspect poses a significant threat of death or serious physical injury to the officer or others.”

Somebody come up with evidence that the officer had such probable cause and I’ll buy it.

It should be noted that the case in question decided the TN statute was unconstitutional because it authorized deadly force in a case not greatly dissimilar to this one.

Except in that case the dead dude was fleeing a burglary, a serious felony, and in this case he was fleeing a burntout tail light.

[Sherman Logan]

I think it's also reasonable to note that the Court held: "such force may not be used unless it is necessary to prevent the escape AND the officer has probable cause to believe that the suspect poses a significant threat of death or serious physical injury to the officer or others."

Note that's an AND, not an OR. The runner was middle-aged and overweight. The cop could almost certainly have run him down. Or pursued in a vehicle. Sirens could be heard as the shooting occurred. At least one additional cop was on site in less than a minute. (He's in the video.)

Is it really reasonable to assume that the shooting was "necessary to prevent the escape?"

That's ignoring the other element of reasonable cause to believe suspect is a potentially lethal threat.

However, somebody come up with evidence, not speculation, and I'm perfectly willing to change my mind.