You said that academies teach that you have to wait for some sort of "clear and present" threat. You very clearly said, "Having to wait until the threat is more clear and present, like lifting the gun up or whatever... Every certified, legitimate police academy teaches that."

You made a universal, blanket statement to that effect. You are wrong. That is not true. Police uses of force are very much based on the totality of the circumstances that allow an officer to arrive at the conclusion that a threat is imminent and lethal force is therefore justified. That is and remains the legal standard for use of force in the United States.

As just one example, here is a video that just happened, so it's still under review. Unlike the Florida situation, between my colleagues and all of the police-related media I follow, I cannot find one officer (and remember, the justification is based on the "reasonable officer" standard, not reasonable member of the public) who thinks this won't be ruled justified:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?si=e4VW9oo7E0IRSQMl&v=0rjsU1-tzaE&feature=youtu.be

I'm not using this to compare to the Florida shooting directly since so much is different, but at the moment the shots are taken, much is the same: the individual has a firearm in hand, pointed towards the ground, and is backing up. According to your "clear and present" standard, that's not enough of a threat, because he never actually "lifted the gun, or whatever" at the officers. According to the actual legal standard I've told you, which is the totality of the known circumstances at the time force was used, this is almost certainly going to be justified. In short, you are incorrect--officers are judged based on what they knew at the time.

I'm not going to debate you on this specific case because I already said I could see it going either way, though I explained how the known fact pattern would support a justification. Regardless, I suspect that people who are adamant about it are likely to be surprised.