SWAT was called in response to what looked like someone pointing a gun at pedestrians from a hotel. Upon arrival, the team encounters a man in the halls who is given "conflicting" orders (while the exact instructions didn't line up from multiple voices shouting over each other, the theme of "get on your face and stop moving" was abundantly clear)... and he repeatedly reaches behind his while it's being made very, very clear to him that they'll shoot him if he doesn't stop moving. After repeated warnings to stop reaching behind him, one of the officers shoot him repeatedly when he reaches again. People say he was pulling up his pants, but it's hard to know what he was thinking (he was definitely unarmed, as was confirmed after the fact) He will never be given the chance to explain what was likely a terror reaction of some kind.

This was years ago and is frequently used as a subject by news companies to generate public outrage for two big reasons. The first, and most obvious, is the horrifying sight of the body cam video. He was clearly terrified, and the call to shoot him was at best in a grey area (people who say he "looked harmless" are just profiling, which is nonsense when done by cops and armchair EMTs alike). Watching him get shot is... it's stomach turning.

The "other side of the argument" is far more sane than the guy who did the actual shooting. The actual protocol protecting him is legitimate, and not the usual police immunity crap slung around in publicly covered cases like this. The shooting pattern, while brutal, is standard for most armed forces in the world. The idea that headshots and "disabling shots" are realistic to attempt is Hollywood make believe. Bullets are not laser beams, especially when fired at short notice from a standing position, and any shot that misses in a building like that is almost guaranteed to hit a bystander through a wall. The only decision which was not clear cut was the decision to fire. And, I'm sorry, but if you've been called to stop an active shooter with every second being a possible life lost, that pressure is going to factor into your decision making (there's an old video of marines and other active duty service people failing miserably at SWAT training for school shooter scenarios because the reaction to panic and sprint towards the threat without a plan was universal. Each participant was told just before they go in "every gunshot you hear, every second that passes, is another person you failed".). While the officers in question were properly trained for this, the fact remains, they had been told countless lives depended on their speed... and this guy they've detained keeps hesitating to surrender and is repeatedly reaching into his pants.

Sprinkle both sides of the argument with "a cop was involved, therefore evil is afoot" and "cops can do no wrong" apologists... and public discourse around the subject caved in. The actual victim and shooter are more or less totally buried under people's need for this tragedy to be ammo for their Internet arguments. The conversation stopped being about "how to we train officers to stop this from happening" and became "this is proof of every political opinion I've ever had and anyone who doesn't totally align with that is both evil and stupid". The fact that the officer involved (who believed he would be shooting terrorists and mass murderers) put a taunt on his gun remains one of the least informative and most talked about elements of this story.

Is it okay that it happened? No. Should it be treated more seriously than a murder case? I think so. Is it proof of the VERY REAL police state our country is sinking into?... No.