The person being stopped doesn't have to be armed. It just has to be possible or probable that he's armed, so that the officers feared for their safety. If a cop tells you to show your hands, but you reach behind your back, you can expect to be shot, since that is what someone with a gun would do.
Where did you get this idea from? Is this how officers are trained these days?
I was under the impression that a police officer, armed to enforce the law, is held to a higher standard of a duty of care than a common citizen.
That there are successive levels of force a police officer is authorized to use in the performance of his duties, and the expectation is that an officer use a level one level higher than that being presented by a suspect.
That even if they believe that deadly force is necessary, they are supposed to exercise emotional control so as to be able to recognize a real
threat of deadly force before acting with deadly force.
However, what we seem to be seeing in many video presentations is that a number of these officers involved in wrongful shootings are starting at the highest level, deadly force, without any real sign that this level was necessary.
That the officer(s) involved failed to act with rational restraint and instead let adrenalin drive their actions.
Now I don't intend to assume the mantle of judge and jury, but IMO many of these incidents appear on their face to have been completely preventable.