This is where the discussion about force, proportionality, and constitutional standards comes in. Law enforcement is trained under a “use of force continuum,” meaning responses should match the threat level in the moment. Deadly force is supposed to be reserved for an immediate threat of serious harm. The public is comparing the two incidents because it raises a hard question: if someone can be physically restrained during a more chaotic confrontation, what changed in the later moment that led to gunfire? That’s not an emotional question — it’s a legal one. Courts look at “objective reasonableness,” not hindsight, but video evidence often becomes central in evaluating that standard. This isn’t about assuming guilt or innocence. It’s about understanding how force decisions are judged under constitutional law, why transparency matters, and why video evidence changes public conversations about policing. These cases test how rules written on paper are applied in real-world tension. Deba...