I agree wholeheartedly it would have been a bad shoot if the Tazer wasn't a factor. Remove the Tazer, and it would have been trivially resolvable via pursuit. Annoying to the Officers at worst, but definitely not an escalation that would have justified deadly force.
EDIT: Looking for an article to make sure I'm not conflating something else I read.
https://www.fox5atlanta.com/news/fulton-county-da-6-apd-offi...
From what I've read elsewhere it seems like the message taken from it was that a Tazer is to be considered excessive force when used by an officer when backup is available, but it isn't necessarily an Olympic tier leap to integrate that observation with an elevation of threat level of a suspect with one.
Again, not saying I agree with it or personally buy the logic, but it is within my threshold for "Goddamnit, we didn't make unambiguously clear apparently, so henceforth... do not do it again"
And absent extenuating circumstances already listed resulting from the current political climate, I doubt I'd extend the same level of charity to an officer in nearly identical circumstances.
But again, this isn't a deadly threat because they're running away. If they turned around and aimed it at you, then sure, you could claim that they are a threat to you–though still not a deadly one. If you shoot someone running away from you, you're not doing it because you're threatened, you're doing it because you don't want them to get away, and that's the point that was being made.