I know you never argued anything about a warning, and I knew it when I made my first reply to you. That part of my post wasn't specifically directed at you so much as other posters who have made the argument that, because he didn't order him to drop the weapon, the shooting was unlawful. Because it was in my reply to you, it probably seemed like it was targeted directly at you, but aside from the stuff about the "clear and present" verbiage, most of what I was writing was general background about how uses of force are judged.

And I get you saying that you never clearly said it was the legal standard, but go back and read what you wrote and then put it in context. LE academies teach the lawful requirements for use of force, period. Anything that is additional beyond that (which is what you seem to be implying with the "clear and present" statement of "lifting [the gun] or whatever) is not taught and would actually be a huge liability to police trainers. So by saying every academy teaches it (when they don't), you're also seemingly giving a pseudo-legal weight to it, even if it wasn't your intention.

I have to admit, I'm not sure what your ultimate opinion is (and don't mean to try and tie you to one), but it seemed, in the post I responded to, that you were fairly certain the shooting wasn't justifiable. Hence, I made a post explaining all of the reasons (taken almost entirely from the body cam footage) as to why it could very well be ruled a justifiable shooting. Ultimately though, whether you agree or disagree with that particular assessment, I'm glad to understand that we're generally on the same page regarding non-specific use-of-force discussions.