Unlike ANY of your examples, Eric Garner, Tamir Rice, Rodney King, Trayvon Martin and Michael Brown were all hurt or killed in public, and most of them picked the fight themselves. Rice is totally innocent by virtue of his age, but even pointing a fake gun, in a day when people get in trouble for gun-finger gestures, is asking for trouble. Garner stupidly tried to fight off the cops who tried to arrest him, as if holding his hands out of reach would make them quit or go home. The only intelligent thought that might have been going on there might have been an intention to provoke a public overreaction to get his case thrown out or even a settlement, which would not be a half bad idea, if you have the cardio-pulmonary fitness to survive it. Meanwhile, King did attack the cops, who were backing up a couple of traffic officers who called for assistance on a flagrant moving violation. While I tend to be a bit more objective about such things, as a non-driver, I defy the rest of you to honestly say that in the moment when you are cut off by a guy doing 100 mph, you wouldn't smile at the sight of him getting hauled out of his car and cuffed face down on the pavement. There is also strong evidence that Martin and Brown first assaulted and physically harmed the men who shot them.

I am on your side on all three of the examples you give (I actually referenced the third in another post on this thread), but the superior ability of one party in a fight does not justify his opponent, and restrict his right to win.
Not to defend their prior actions, but this was probably, for certain values of right, the right thing to do, because it DE-escalated the situation. This was not an argument or discussion that would have served any purpose, and could potentially lead to more loss of life. The blood pool is an irrelevant emotional detail that does not mitigate or multiply the actual guilt of the actions. And sorry, but however useful such emotional details are in winning arguments and getting changes, they only contribute to the propensity you have been deploring in this thread, for people to pick one side and plant their flag there.

Well, chalk up another win for public unions. These men should not be cops, and possibly not even alive. Without unions, union reps and contracts to protect them from the consequences, and emotional responses like "this cop I work with made an honest mistake that could have happened to me, and punishing him won't bring this stranger back to life so..." Also, serving warrants is doing the courts' dirty work. Does anyone honestly expect a judge to walk back his initial command, much less take responsibility for his role in the process? The cops protect their tribe, the judges protect theirs, and when they overlap, getting justice against those tribes is an impossible fight. Much better to neuter them in the first place.

Yet another systemic flaw, in that procedures, policies and precedents intended to protect police who raid a gangster's lair from animal cruelty charges because they defended themselves against the criminal's attack dobermans, are applied to justify jackassery. But if you can't apply common sense to such differences in actual situations, maybe it's time to rethink the system.

But the cops are really just weapons themselves. The people who bring it to bear are the ones who set out the laws and dictate a law enforcement response. If you are going to pass a law, you should consider the moral issue of whether or not the end you hope to achieve is worth killing people to obtain, because every confrontation between those who enact or enforce laws has the potential to become lethal. Thanks to human nature and the tragic limitations of human ability to foresight, there are GOING to be outlier cases where people die, no matter how you set up a system, and if you create a perfect law enforcement system that makes it impossible to kill citizens, you'll get cops killed, at which point actual enforcement efforts will tail off to nothing, and where is your law and order now? I took some sort of amateurish personality test in high school and again in college, that revealed I have a strong authoritarian personality. I believe in hierarchy and law and absolute right and wrong, but I keep coming around to limited government, because all I keep seeing is the degradation of those same principles of law and order and hierarchy, through excessive application, even without abuse or malfeasance or corruption.

I think anyone entering a private residence uninvited, who takes a claymore blast to the face gets what is coming to him, no matter what color his work clothes or what documentation signed by a judge he carries. But I can also see the obvious practical problems for society at large in that kind of response. The only genuine solution I can see, is to not encourage or order people (cops) to go into that situation in the first place. Less government, more responsibility, and with God's help, a better world.