I feel like some folks don't understand the 4th amendment ITT. They expect free citizens to surrender their rights because the government shows up with a gun. I will never understand people who think that way. 'Just comply' no, **** you this is America you dumbass.
It is certainly true that "just comply" isn't always one's legal obligation, but...
1. It is nearly always a prudent thing to do. (Note, I'd have added "especially if a gun has been drawn," but from what I've seen the draw and shooting occurred so quickly that I doubt anybody would have had time to process and act on that, even given the fastest neural pathways.)
2. The reality is that none of us, and probably 99.99999% of the twitter mob cited in this and other threads and news articles, know just why she was there, or what was being said at the time. The possibilities range from "truly accidental wrong place wrong time and got flustered trying to leave with everything going on around her" to "professional ice stalker activist." I suspect the reality is somewhere in the middle, but there is at least a plausible possibility that the lead up to this may have entailed some form of obstruction/failure to follow lawful order, which would easily provide grounds for some sort of Terry stop under 4A principles, for which a person does have an obligation to comply. Again though, none of us is in a position to assess that.
3. As I've noted otherwise, the justification (even if it exists) for a Terry stop alone does not extend to drawing one's weapon to make it happen. That would require good faith and reasonable concern for safety, and as I've noted, that's a more ambiguous question from what I've seen, but one for which the LEO tends to get a bit of deference.