Wouldn't it have correct for you to say "What actions did they take that the lethal force used against them was justified?"

If you had used those words, then you place yourself in the position to logically and unemotionally discuss the situation. Instead, you've already miss-characterized the entire situation (incorrectly), and are already on the defensive.

<Quote>
Your memory is faulty. Trayvon Martin didn't have a gun to attack anyone with. He was walking home.
<End Quote>
I didn't say that Martin had the gun. The security guy did.

<Quote>
Sandra Bland refused to put out a cigarette in her own car, which, as far as I know, no law permits the police to demand in response to a traffic violation.
<End Quote>
Not complying with Police Officers puts one at risk. The next element is having them fear for their safety. Why didn't she just put the cigarette out? What's the big deal? Her last one? Instead, her stubbornness starts the situation going in a bad way....

<Quote>
As for Michael Brown, it was more than just failure to comply with an officer's order, but again, I don't know of anything there that qualifies for a death penalty, and certainly, that makes no sense in a situation where there was no court involved in the decision.
<End Quote>
There doesn't need to be a court involved in the decision for an officer to protect himself. They make the judgement call. They are human...which means that they can be affected by their own biases, predilections, and mistakes. Best way to avoid a bad situation? Comply with them. Do not argue. Do not try and reason. Do not try and "Get your way".

<Quote>
In all three cases, especially with Bland and Martin, their own actions did not cause their deaths.
<End quote>
I do not remember them being hunted down by someone. Martin was killed while walking home by the security guy. And I don't know the Bland situation. Their actions had to have played a part in it....even if it wasn't responsible for the action. It takes two to tango.

~Jeordam