I am not applying definitions rather using words that apply to the action.
The deceased did not step over or around an obstacle, rather jumped over it. If you "jump rope" you are not flying as high as a guy making a slam dunk but if you are high enough for the rope to pass under both of your feet, you are in fact jumping.
You do realize that "skip rope" or "skipping rope" is just as much of a common name for the exercise and child's game you call "jump rope", right?
This is where sometimes definitions casually used may require further explanation and additional context so relevance can be obtained.
So, what about the suspect on the clerk's left having to "JUMP" (or skip) over the small box, unlike the other suspect having the ability to walk around the counter without having to step around or otherwise navigate a small box on the floor, made that particular suspect seem more of a threat ... if you were in the clerk's position (and likely knew it was just a small box you'd left sitting there)?
Even if the deceased suspect had vigorously LEAPED over the counter, at what point did that make him reasonably seem to be an imminent threat of seriously bodily injury or death, still not displaying or brandishing (or simulating) a weapon, with the clerk still approx 50ft distant, around another corner of the long counter?
These aren't trick questions, BTW. They're very reasonable questions which are probably going to be addressed and fully discussed by the DA in the presentation of his/her case, and possibly answered by the defense (should he or his attorney feel it is in his best interests to testify). The DA has to prove his case, beyond a reasonable doubt. The defense doesn't have to prove anything, or the defendant even testify in his own defense, for that matter, but the defense will likely try to create reasonable doubt in the minds of jurors, where the defense believes it may be able to do so.
I wasn't present when this happened and haven't presumed to be able to "judge" the defendant's guilt, but I'd not wish to be in his position in this instance, either.
Even with the involved laws and possible verdicts clearly explained by the judge (during jury instructions), it's always unpredictable to try and guess how a jury will arrive at a verdict. Credibility of a defendant (witness, suspect, cop, etc) can go a long way with a jury (as well it should). I hope this thread is updated when/if this case goes to trial, and if it does, when a verdict is determined.