He could have backed away, or closed his door. Is that so hard?
The title said "shuffling in his direction", it did not portray him as a person randomly shuffling around shot for no reason.
You said it in the next sentence...the officer ALLOWED him to get too close, he had options to not let that happen that don't include homicide. That's the point I, and the Mexican government, wish to make clearly. There WERE other, non deadly options that keep the officer safe, they simply didn't try any of them and went with deadly force as a first option when verbal commands didn't work.

Stabbed or shot him with WHAT? His hands were empty, and in fact he was totally unarmed, and too drunk to win a fist fight.

Yes, moving towards the officer can be seen as threatening, but a threat that is easily avoided without using firearms in numerous ways, like walking back or closing his door, either of which would keep him 'safe'.

HOLY SHIT!!! Now just putting your hands down is a shooting offence! I'll simply disagree on that, and hope I'm not alone.

I'm flabbergasted that the officer is being seen as doing the right thing by people here for shooting instead of retreating to a safe distance, people who's opinion I value, no less, not just our local cop excuser. I watched again to see if I see what you guys do, and I just can't see it. I must admit, it seems I'm a minority in that...at least in this country.

I guess people better do exactly as the officer says, and if you have two officers telling you to do opposing things, (for example- "FREEZE" AND "GET ON THE GROUND"....which do you do?) well, you're hosed, because one of them can shoot you for not obeying, making you 'threatening'.
Oh.

...Because apparently cops have become so cowardly that now, a man sitting calmly and still with his empty hands raised and visible makes them feel fear for their lives and ready to use deadly force (2 inches lower and that bite would have killed him), then they have the audacity to harass him in his hospital bed telling him how wrong he was for sitting still (not apologizing for violently attacking a calm, still man over a backyard fire).
God damn, I can't quite agree with @shang, but I can certainly understand how he feels.

Bicycle, the last sentences showed me that you have a level head and stopped me from my knee-jerk reaction... The case here was from the start a very possible deadly force.

Double murder suspect...the guy had nothing to lose, already by judgment of safety, because he murdered two people and lets be honest, if he killed the cop he now had another gun. It is not the officer I worry about (though it would be sad if he lost his life) but the innocent guy driving by who gets shot for his car.

Second, the guy here obviously had a method to murder people. Whether he killed those two with a knife or gun would be irrelevant. I can kill you with a knife within 21 feet before you have time to draw your weapon, and that is a fact.

Third, 8% of officers die by their own weapon. That is not a small number. I would play the lotto with those odds...just saying. Once in hand to hand you better be able to win regardless of their skill...

You shoot to kill because of what might happen, not what has happened. Drawing the gun was 100% right. That four seconds where you are scrambling is three shots from the bad guy--at least I can get off three.

Ahh, I see, the police CLAIMED he pointed it at them during the moment the camera wasn't pointed at him, eh? I'm not sure I can take the word of an officer as fact these days....sadly.
You call it robbery, he was only charged with theft. He had a metal object in his hand, but didn't try to use it on anyone. You call it breaking and entering, but there's no indication the home was closed or that he broke anything, he did enter (trespassing), and did steal a car (not carjacked, so still GTA?), and later a gun (again, only petty theft). My point was it was not reported he threatened or injured anyone (beyond himself) during any of these crimes, so they may not have been violent at all. He was certainly having mental issues. You seem to be saying ANY crime is violent, which you're free to believe, but I'm free to disagree.
No one was seen in danger at the time they ran him over, certainly not in the camera range. In America we aren't supposed to try to kill people for what they MIGHT do sometime in the future, right?
True, they could have handled it worse in many ways, that doesn't mean I can't still see, and exclaim, that they handled it terribly.

I think you said it all in your last paragraph. Deadly force was authorized IF NEEDED, the officer saw an OPPORTUNITY (not a necessity) and took it.

If he truly pointed the gun at someone, it changes my opinion, but unfortunately I can't take a cop's word on that...."he grabbed my taser" (and the hundreds of other lies caught on camera) blows it for every claim they make. Now, if it's not on camera, it didn't happen. Their word is worth less than nothing at this point. They better buy those body cameras quick, because I don't think I'm alone thinking that way.

Talk (officer one was just starting to try this)....then Taser/pepper spray....then shotgun bean bag/rubber bullets....THEN deadly force.
That simple.

10 people killed versus one cop killed.

I imagine you would prefer those stats to be reversed, considering your animus toward cops.

The reason that stat is correct is because cops are called into dangerous situations with dangerous people, the cops have training and the responsibility to use deadly force.

If the cop does something wrong, he has to answer to his local prosecutor up to and including the attorney general of the United States and the resources of the entire Dept of Justice...which, by the way, was used on Darren Wilson, and Darren Wilson was found to have acted correctly.

You would prefer the criminal get the upper hand, which puts you well out of the mainstream of normal people.

Why is that?

You really need to use some critical thinking instead of just taking a statistic and trying to draw a conclusion from it. Especially when that conclusion is so blatantly specious.

Yes, I understand they are taught to shoot to kill, I just think it's wrong to do so.
If it was an unavoidable situation of a single officer against a single offender, I would agree. Since there were 3, one of them could have safely moved to trying non-lethal force, with a double helping of deadly force instantly backing him up if it doesn't work. If not taser, bean bags, sticky foam, flash bang, etc. They have many means of non-lethal force that work almost every time. That should be the normal, daily way of doing it. That's why they call for backup. If they're just going to all shoot to kill anyway, why not just save time and money and do it alone? If they're only going to try lethal force, can we stop paying for all that non-lethal equipment we give them?
Shooting rapid fire and randomly in the direction of a 'perp' puts the public at risk. The first 5+ shots all missed him and flew down the street, I'm curious if anyone was hit.
If they don't even attempt non-lethal means of halting the criminal, there WAS a much better alternative. If lethal force is acceptable in any unknown situation, it's become a war of 'us vs them' where any police stop may end in one or both parties being killed because the cop wasn't sure he was safe, that's not a good outcome. When there are multiple officers, at least one should always TRY non-lethal force. If it's appropriate to have multiple guns drawn and pointed at a human's head, it's appropriate to try to taser them or bean bag them before shooting a full clip of live rounds.

If 'potential threat' is the only metric needed to justify homicide, every cop on the beat could be legally shot. They are all armed, and known to shoot to kill at the slightest provocation. Killing them would be self defense in every case if that was the only thing needed to make it acceptable, as they are all not just 'potential threats', but actual deadly threats known to be armed and homicidal.
That's why that theory doesn't work in my eyes. It leads to more killings, which leads to more fear, which leads to more killings, which leads to more fear.... Cops are trained and armed and given bullet proof vests, cut proof gloves/sleeves, and have massive backup. If they intentionally put themselves in a position where they are alone against an unknown threat, then kill out of fear of the situation they put themselves in, how is that not inappropriate? I really don't get it.
(I do get that sometimes (rarely) it's unavoidable, but most times a little patience and a little less 'contempt of cop- punishable by death' would diffuse situations that police instead often escalate into homicide because of a complete lack of patience or empathy, or out of anger because they were 'disrespected' by not having their commands followed instantly)

So the same goes for citizens arrest, no?
That means when I citizens arrest a cop, and he goes for his gun, it's more than legal to kill them instantly? If not, please explain how not.

It makes no sense whatsoever that those untrained trained thugs only manage to kill 1/10 the number of people the 'trained, not on drugs, non thug' cops. That makes the cops the trained ultra-violent thugs, how can you continue to be blind to that?

EDIT: If 'fear for your life' is excuse for deadly force for citizens too, blacks and non-professional whites could justifiably kill a cop any time they get pulled over, since it's a totally reasonable fear that they'll maybe be injured or killed if they don't strike first. Not a good criteria in my eyes.

It's not about saying cops should always be able to avoid violence, it's saying the cops should not be the instigators or escalators of violence, they should STOP violence. Sadly, all too many are the violent criminals themselves, and all too many more stand with them in a blue wall, or said another way are accessories after the fact.

A police officer is permitted to use force 'one step up' from the person who is resisting. So if he is using his fists, I can use an impact weapon. If he has a knife, I can use a gun. If I fear for my life, I can use deadly force.

Of course more resisters are going to be killed than cops. A lot of those resisters are on drugs, not trained...they're thugs, like Michael Brown.

I've heard it and read it repeatedly, it may not be true, but it's common 'belief'. (edit: perhaps I said it simplistically) That's why I asked.
I've heard and read that one may use any force necessary to effect the arrest, up to and including deadly force.
As 'cop', I would think you would know this, and accept it, since it also says the same thing for cops. It's why most of them are not prosecuted when they kill someone during an arrest....which happens 10 times more often than cops being killed in the line of duty BTW.

No, a police dog is a dog. A tazer is a tool. (I could have made a terrible joke there, but will refrain)
I understand that humans being more 'valuable' than 'animals' (as if we aren't animals) is the normal way of thinking, but you make the knee jerk assumption/implication that they are the only options, either let a dog attack a dangerous armed person that WILL hurt/kill the dog or do it manually and be hurt yourself. There are MANY other options always available that don't involve releasing the unsuspecting dog into harms way. Most don't even involve deadly force. It would NEVER be proper to let the dog attack a known armed threatening person instead of using one's brain to deal with the danger in a safer manner, but that is what you've said you would do.
As a society, we have partially reversed the thinking that 'humans are more important than animals'. That is shown by the creation of many 'preserves' that stop people from farming/hunting on land to save animals, and that ends up killing some people (through starvation, malnutrition, etc). So while your statement is usually correct, people do usually consider humans more valuable than animals, as an absolutist statement it is wrong. That kind of thinking has put us in a position where the food chains are being broken because we only thought about humans (and not very thoroughly).

I'm sorry to hear about your cat, it's a terrible thing to have to help them go, but often the right thing for them. :-(

Your comments were "a dog is a tool" and "If I were tasked with taking a person with a machete into custody, I would be happy to have a dog take a chance over a person risking their life." Both show a complete lack of concern for the dog, or even thought for it as a living, thinking, feeling being. The latter also shows a propensity to put the unsuspecting dog in far greater danger rather than accept a manageable danger themselves. In your scenario, you could easily disarm 'Machette' with your Taser, firearm, car, other officers, etc. with minimal or no danger to the officers, only more time taken, but you say you would send in the dog to get sliced. I find that terrible and not the words of someone that truly cares for the animal.
EDIT: " I would be happy to have a dog take a chance over a person risking their life." really translates to 'I would be happy to have a dog risk their life over a person taking a chance.'...and I and others find that thinking uncaring and irresponsible towards the living, feeling being (your tool) who's care and welfare you took responsibility for.
You are quite correct, I could never be a cop. I don't have the mentality to constantly tell others what to do (and insist they follow my directions), or to deal with the drudgery of writing people tickets, paperwork, etc. I could not dehumanize people I think are criminals daily and treat them like the inhuman scum they 'are'. I would have too hard a time enforcing laws I disagreed with, and I would fear that dealing with people at their worst would make me think the worst of all people, and so cause me to treat them all like the awful criminals they are (in my mind), making me a douchebag with authoratah. I don't want to be that in any way.
I feel like being a cop is a truly hard job that screws with one's mind. Again, why I think therapy on the job should be mandatory.
Honest discussion is never a waste of time.

If that's honestly the extent of your use of force, and they all were proper arrests on people who were also resisting (you only said one of them was resisting), and those you brandished at were armed and violently resisting, that sounds acceptable, but totally abnormal. I would guess that not all those you brandished at were armed threats.
EDIT:A good question....was every suspect you used force against convicted? If not, it seems you made a mistake and were a violent assailant to an 'innocent citizen' yourself, no? If there's no repercussion for those kinds of 'bad acts', how do you know it's wrong? (I'll answer, it seems you don't.)
My experience has been that cops brandish their weapons at anyone they think may be criminal, including those only guilty of 'contempt of cop', like me when a cop read my license plate wrong and assumed the car was stolen, so he violently threw me to the ground at gunpoint and violently handcuffed me (as tight as he could make them go) and acted like a douchebag bully until he realized his mistake. (I followed all his directions to the T without pause but was still treated like I was resisting.) Then there's no apology, in fact he said something more like 'You know why I did that, now go on your way or I'll find something else to arrest you for, and don't think about making a complaint, I know where you live now.' That's only one instance in my life out of many where cops did not act properly, due to no fault of my own. (I was not intimidated by his threat and did make a formal complaint anyway.)

That's 3 shootings (maybe 2 were the same cop?). It sounds like one may have been improper, shooting someone in the back is usually not acceptable, unless he had just been shooting at the cop and turned to run just before being shot, or was running at someone else that needed protecting. If he was not an immediate threat to someone, there was no reason to shoot him in the back rather than track him until he could be safely arrested.
It seems you have a problem understanding our position. We understand that 95% of interactions with cops are done properly and often respectfully. That does not excuse the other 5% by any means, just as it does not excuse someone from committing murder if they were a fine, upstanding citizen otherwise. Get it? It only takes one bad act to erase all your good acts. That's the way of the world. You can't say 'Yeah, I raped that 6 year old, but come on guys, I take good care of little old ladies the rest of the time, so it's fine.'. That doesn't play, neither does 'Most of the time we're good cops, so we should get a pass for those 'rare' times when we are terrible thugs and violent criminals.'
EDIT: It's not only deadly force that is inappropriately applied. You don't have to end up murdering the citizen to have acted inappropriately violent. I hope I'm not telling you something you don't know, only pointing out something you ignored.
The fact that you don't seem to think mandatory counseling is appropriate for those in 'authority' that have failed in their job (to protect citizens) and resorted to using force against citizens (yes, I consider that a fail, there's nearly always another option) is bothering. As I explained, it leaves you feeling it's 'us VS them' (which has been shown to be your mindset from your past comments) and that's terrible for someone in authority to think. I think you need counseling to fix that mindset, and find it troubling that you might disagree (yet are still in a position of power).

I have wrestled with a few people (mostly females), tackled a few people who were running from the police, pointed my weapon at a few people, and drive-stunned (taser) one guy who was resisting arrest. That's it for 30 years.

My dept. usually had around 35 officers and I've known two of them since 1975 or so who have shot at anyone. One officer shot a guy who was trying to run him over in a car, that guy was killed. The officer left the dept and found other work.
Another officer-involved shooting was an officer who shot a guy who had committed a homicide and was running away.
One shooting involved a cop who was shot at and returned fire, hitting one guy with a grazing shot.
So that's a hell of a lot of interactions with people (average about 2000 people per year arrested) with very little deadly force involved.

If you want to counsel police officers involved in using force...that's fine with me.

Grabbing at the officers gun would be immediate grounds for immediate use of deadly force, but once the suspect retreats and is no longer within reach of the officer those grounds have evaporated. The officer should afterwards be wary, but not act as if they are still in danger when the danger ended long before and now they are simply being disobeyed. That's not a legitimate reason for deadly force.
These 'witnesses' that corroborate the officers story are phantoms at best. No one has publicly come forward that corroborates his story that was actually there, all the known witnesses actually contradict the officers account and state that he was retreating, being shot at, flinched, turned, stumbled forward while raising his arms/grasping his sides and was shot another 5-6 times as he fell, including (according to the autopsy) once in the top of the head that exited through his eye...it's hard to see how he could both be a threat and in a position where he could be shot that way. I think if this was a citizen shooting, they would call that 'execution style'.
Attaching the statement of a single person or small group to an entire race is not only racist, it's simply wrong. No group is homogenous, they don't all see this the same way, even if their skin is similar in melanin content.
So, you seem to be saying a taser should only be attempted when the officer is backed up and the suspect is alone with no bystanders. I'll just say I disagree, it should always be the first choice when more than physical hands-on force is needed.
I'm guessing you've never been tazed. The complete incapacitation may stop when you stop the charge, but the residual pain, and the memory of that pain and knowledge that more can come instantly usually does stop even the angriest wanna-be supermen.

Grabbing at a gun is immediate grounds for deadly force in every case, law, home, etc. I only say this because the suspect obviously upped the ante to that zone with no regard for human life. Second, "witnesses" were there to see it all...that's not a good thing and ups the ante far, far more... witnesses are either friends or someone the cop has no idea who they are. That means they are potentially dangerous, especially in a city where blacks (by their own heartfelt admissions) HATE white police officers with a huge passion. I am not saying the racists are not justified, as they clearly have been profiled and such, but this is clearly the case. No confusion should ever arise in dispute of the fact that bystanders are different than potential dangers. If the officer does taze and someone gets involved, he is a dead mother fucker because now he is occupied with a screaming, shitting-self man who is 100% willing to murder him, as already displayed, and someone else. Lastly, the tazer does not always work. And when the tazer does work, immediately afterwards you are 100% capable of using your body to 100% again. Most people think that then tazer magically incapacitates someone for a long time. No--when you release that trigger the tazer's effects are over.
In my opinion deadly force is not the last option. It is the option right before you die.

Now the responses are, for certain, based on stupid choices. The chief trying to minimize was what we all do but pretty dumb. You ever comfort a kid that he might not be hurt so he doesn't feel pain or freak out? Happens, even if the kid is really really hurt and the ambulance is on the way. Stupid choice...and the releasing of the video is iffy at best. What pisses me off most is that it was not meant to calm down the violence, but to appease the nation's view of Ferguson's white people...