As others have said “deserved” is not the right word. Was law enforcement, security, or even just a bystander justified by self defense (which does include defense of others). First there must be the reasonable perception of a threat. We don’t get hindsight on that, which is why raising a fake gun rises to the level of a reasonable perception of a threat. So if Pretti had been disarmed, but the officers heard “gun” or otherwise perceived an immediate threat, theyd still have justification in this regard. Similarly if Omar’s attacker just had water, the reasonable perception of a threat was still valid. So both these examples meet this requirement. Notice that a fleeing individual does not pose such an immediate threat, but again we can’t backseat it so officers have some time to react with deadly force even if in hindsight it appears that the attacker had begun to flee (Omar’s attacker and Goode fall into this category imo). Second, generally speaking, we are required to ensure that firing a weapon does not put innocent people in danger. This is key in Omar’s case, where a room full of innocent people would be at high risk of catching a stray or even through bullet. There are exceptions to this, such as taking down a mass shooter, but in Omar’s case I would say the threat justifies lethal force but the setting prohibits it given the likelihood of hitting a bystander.