Disagree with your assessment on this one, Newt.

The guy's intention was to suicide by cop. The cop clearly wasn't hoping to have to shoot the guy, and he made the right call in my opinion after trying repeatedly to get the guy to stay away from him while also calling for backup.

It matters not that the guy was "shuffling" in the cop's direction. Once in close enough proximity it wouldn't take much to engage in fisticuffs and potentially subdue the officer.

The guy wasn't just being stubborn or unruly. He was intentionally demonstrating that he was a threat by reaching under his shirt multiple times then asking to be killed while threatening the officer's safety by advancing toward him.

Thank goodness the cop wasn't charged for murder. He's no cowardly murderer.

Except that's it's not my assessment, it's the Mexican government's assessment.
EDIT: When the Federall'es (SP? Mexican police) say your cops are out of control, it's time to take another look.

It seemed to me that the guy was a belligerent drunk, who at one moment complies (standing with his hands on head), then turns to argue, tugs on his shirt collar (in a failed attempt to show he's unarmed, or telling the cop to shoot him there?) and shuffles slowly towards the cop. If he was trying to suicide by cop, he did it in a way that made it look totally unthreatening to me. No quick movements, hands on head, no weapon, no threats, no fists...where's the threat in a slow moving unarmed suspect?

I agree, once he was in arms reach and still advancing, he's a threat...but you must completely ignore the cop's ability to move away to make the killing in any way justified. The cop had every opportunity to keep safe distance by simply moving away slowly...why didn't he? Stand Your Ground?
EDIT:Or, the cop had the opportunity to close his car door and lock it, making him 100% safe against the unarmed drunk until backup arrived 20 seconds later.

I didn't see it that way, I (and others, including the officials in the Mexican government) saw a drunk, acting inappropriately, being belligerent when he sees the gun pointed at him and asking the officer "You gonna kill me?", to which the officer replies "no, I'm not going to kill you", then reports on the radio "He's saying 'kill me'". He did not say "Kill me.", he said "Are you GOING to kill me?" as I heard it.
I never saw him reach UNDER his shirt, only tug at the collar of his shirt, and at one point turn around and put his hands behind his back touching his shirt (but NEVER under his shirt). I don't know where that idea came from (except maybe from the cop's statement), please watch again.
I think if an unarmed man slowly advancing on you with hands on his head is a 'deadly threat to the officer's safety', we have HUGE problems, because that theory makes it legal to shoot anyone that comes near them....they don't know if they're armed and attacking, or just passing by, right?
Cops are supposed to de-escalate problems, not exacerbate them.

As for the 'murder' designation...if a citizen shot this man in the exact same circumstances, he should face murder charges. I don't give people a pass on homicide based on their job.

I agree with lucky760 here. This guy was not a compliant person shot for no reason.

I'm someone who thinks cops should be held to extremely high standards and I've commented such on other cop videos on videosift. But in this case I'm not really sure what else the cop could have done. He needed to engage the guy physically. He was walking toward him. That might sound innocent enough but the closer he got to the cop the more dangerous he became.

Even if there was a real language barrier and the guy didn't understand what he was being told this is just obviously not OK. He wasn't behaving right, maybe he was high or whatever but he was a physical threat to the officer.

Portraying him as just a person shuffling around being shot for no reason ignores the fact that he was shuffling right up to an officer who had his weapon drawn. If the officer allowed him to get too close he could have attacked the officer. Even if the officer got a clean shot adrenaline could have driven the guy on a step or two and he could have stabbed or shot the officer. That distance separating them is important. Moving toward the officer in this situation is a threatening act, regardless of where your hands are.

The officer did not shoot on numerous occasions when the guy put his hands down, an act which under the circumstances could legitimately be seen as a threat to his safety. He waited until the guy had gone way too far and got way too close. This wasn't a trigger happy cop out to back a Mexican, it was an unlucky cop in the wrong place.

@newtboy: "I think if an unarmed man slowly advancing on you with hands on his head is a 'deadly threat to the officer's safety', we have HUGE problems, because that theory makes it legal to shoot anyone that comes near you....you don't know if they're armed and attacking, or just passing by, right?"

Come now. That's taking it to a nonsensical extreme. Context matters.

@newtboy: "Cops are supposed to de-escalate problems"

He did.

---

Obviously it's just a difference of opinion, and I'm not expecting to change your mind or try to debate the issue, just explain my alternate perspective.

In my opinion, if a cop has a gun pointed at you and he's screaming at you to back up and you continue approaching him and get close enough that you could lunge at him, you *should* be shot to death as a potential threat to his safety. And if that happens, the cop is neither a murderer nor a coward.

It's not the cop's job to risk his own life for a suspect's safety when that suspect is the one willfully and intentionally creating that risk despite insistent screams from that officer that he stop.

You've transcribed my thoughts pretty exactly.

I too am not at all a gung ho "screw all the dead guys, cops are the best" type. I consider every shooting I see on an individual basis, and to me it's clear that the officer had to shoot the guy to stop him, and he tried repeatedly to avoid it.

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.

Yes, I was being extreme, over simplifying, and exaggerating to try to prove my point....but I still don't think this man was a 'deadly threat' requiring homicide to stop, because moving slowly away or shutting a door would have kept the officer 100% safe. Why is that not reasonable? Please, I do mean that as a real question, not a smarmy remark.

I agree with your point about them shooting a suspect that has them cornered, but not when they can simply walk backwards slowly and stay safe. The cop need not risk his life, I just want them to TRY to not kill people, instead of jumping at any excuse to do so. If they have a reasonable way out, which he did, I want them to use that every time...as long as that doesn't put them or others in deadly peril.
I continue to contend, he could have retreated or closed his door and been safe, and backup was there seconds afterwards to ensure that safety. If you think either of those is unreasonable, I would be interested in knowing why. Perhaps you would convince me I'm totally wrong.
Now, had the man actually been armed, I would change my position completely.

EDIT: Because I'm apparently in the extreme minority in my estimation, I changed the title.

Second Edit: I don't call that de-escalation. :-)

lucky is right, there's a lot of context missing in your statement here. Nothing about the situation in the video is even remotely the same as someone just walking past an officer. Come on, you can't seriously think this.

There are plenty of videos out there showing cops doing horrific things to suspects that are disgusting and utterly barbaric and wrong. This just isn't one of those videos.

This video is a record of a very unfortunate event where a drunk guy did something very, very stupid and paid for it with his life but blaming the cop in this situation is just not fair.

We now know the guy was unarmed, but I don't see from the video how the cop was supposed to know that. It's very easy to say he shot an unarmed man, but until the cop can search him he's got to assume for his own safety that the guy is armed. Can you show me where in the video this search takes place?

The video is bad, but not the cop's fault. Alcohol makes people do stupid things, and if this guy had swerved into oncoming traffic and killed himself that way instead we'd be saying how people shouldn't drink and drive, but none of us would be saying it wasn't his fault.

Side note...why on earth were they both staying on the traffic side of the stop? I never heard the officer instruct him to move away from traffic, which I see as the norm, and also the officer kept himself in the danger zone. That was odd to me.

That's not a viable as a practical solution.

Consider option 1: The officer backs away. He keeps walking backward and the suspect keeps advancing. He'll just keep walking backward until he's hit by a car or he trips over something or the suspect lunges at him. (Maybe he should have just turned around and run away! .) Or maybe as he backs away the suspect jumps into his police cruiser and drives away.

Option 2: The officer jumps into his car to hide from the suspect. Officers are trained to confront and stop a potential threat, not hide from it. (That's what they're there for, so the rest of us can run and hide.) It's just not realistic that in any situation an officer could sit down in his car and lock the door and hope the suspect will become manageable after that or calm down and start following commands.

If the guy walks back to his car, the cop would jump out and yell at him to stop again, then if he came back the cop would jump back in the car to hide again. It's not something they train for to put themselves into a position where the outcome is totally unpredictable.

point 1: addressed above.
Point 2: Yes, there are far more clear videos of bad cop behavior, this one is less clear. That said, this one has sparked the Mexican government to petition ours to change the way our officers act. That's a big deal.
Point3: you are correct, he can't tell for certain that the suspect is unarmed, but can tell for certain he has no arm in his hands, and he never sees anything (even a bulge) that might be an arm. Assuming he's armed is somewhat reasonable, but I want them to actually SEE a weapon before acting as if they're threatened with one.
Point 4: Yes, the guy was an idiot criminal that nearly killed himself and others by drunk driving and speeding. Had he caused an accident, that would be 100% his fault...but that's not what happened. He did give the officer an opportunity to see him as threatening and shoot....opportunity is not a need.

Again, I only want to see officers TRY to not use deadly force...and that means TRYING other things first...and not just commands, actions. I n this case, walking backwards for 20 seconds may well have de-escalated the entire situation and we would never know this stop happened.

If the man had started to run...shoot. If he pulls out a weapon...shoot. If he shuffles at you slowly with hands on head...back up. That's my entire point right there....one I derived in part from the position of the Mexican government, not just out of my ass.

! So walking backwards is now a dangerous act for a cop?!? ;-) Even I give them the benefit of a doubt that they are capable of walking backwards, focusing forwards, and still knowing where they are. he had his car to guide him, and once behind it could easily move to his right, off the street....or just closed his car door.

Yes, the suspect MIGHT have jumped into the cop car if it's left open...and if it's keys are still in it might have tried to get away again. In my eyes, that's preferable to a certain homicide, but that's just me.

I didn't think closing the door would calm the suspect, I think it would make the officer 'safe'. The suspect could then be addressed with the backup that was there in seconds, not a lone, scared cop that felt threatened. Having the suspect continue to shuffle around seems preferable to what happened....but again, that's just me.

So lets agree we disagree then. It seems neither of us sees what the other does, and that's just fine. If everyone agreed about everything, what would we talk about? :-)
EDIT: and thank you for the reasonable, respectful discussion.

Second edit: interesting no one (including me) thought about tazer gunning him. I would have supported that the instant he put his hands down, or after the first time he's told to stay where he is but he steps forward anyway. I'm guessing, in the heat of the moment, it didn't occur to the officer either.

two shots the the chest is the first line de-escalation? A bit extreme?. I've worked in mental health where the police bring much more threatening and non compliant people in for assessment. What about shooting someone in the foot?
He could have been dangerous, but the video shows an idiot rather than a threat - but police are trained to assume that all such encounters are life or death.

The Mexican government's assessment. don't mean dick.

The cop was right in protecting himself.

Under those circumstances, yes!

Considering that just walking backwards under no duress on the edge of a busy freeway could be tricky, doing so while overflowing with adrenaline and a potential threat continuing to advance on you... yeah, it's not like taking a nice leisurely stroll.

The most important question to answer your suggested solutions is: what happens next?

The problem is there's no answer to the question because no one knows what might or might not happen. Again, cops can't put themselves into a position where they have no idea what their next move might be because they're yielding to the potential threat in front of them and handing them the power to control the situation.

I have an idea...what if we ask police to make the first bullet in their clip a rubber bullet, making them ready to use less lethal force yet still be 100% ready with deadly force if it doesn't do the job without changing any other behavior. That alone might stop most officer involved killings.

Speaking of which...

I wonder what their assessment is of all the beheadings and drug cartel violence in their country. They would probably do well to focus on their own police... who is corrupt as fuck. I wonder if they consider them cowardly. Or maybe they think corruption is the brave act of a hero.

OK, I see your point there. That kind of goes to my 'why are they both on the traffic side' though...although I grant he didn't really have much opportunity to move it to the side of the road. I would have retreated (edit: either on foot or in the car) when the guy got past his own trunk, but that's just me, and I'm obviously abnormal.

As to 'what happens next'...I want to say 'backup arrives', but I do see that he can't assume they will, maybe staking his life on that.
So, somewhat less outraged, but still quite disappointed that other methods were, at best, afterthoughts.

Making life and death decisions alone in the dark on the side of the road is hard. MmmmmK? And this is all Monday morning quarterbacking too with 20/20 hindsight. I do see that, lest you think otherwise.

Funny, that was actually my first thought when I read about the Mexican government complaining.
'Didn't their cops kidnap 40+ college students and hand them to cartels that killed them all?' sprang to mind instantly.
But that doesn't mean they don't have a reasonable complaint to make....just that we have more reasonable complaints to make about them.

Taser
Pepperspray
Baton
shooting the extremeties

Sure, he had no other option other than shooting the guy in the chest 2 times.
That is deescalation for you? That's the training standard of your police officers? You must be joking.

To everyone who said the officer acted out of line, need to realize that the situation could very well have ended differently.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=L6z8q4lOrDU

By which you mean if he was white, the officer would have shown an overabundance of restraint?
What DO you mean by that completely different situation?

You seem to have clearly missed the point and are obviously trying to just push an agenda rather than objectively look at the situation. The first thing you can think of is a race issue? Stop trolling. The officer in the video I linked showed restraint, attempted to issue verbal directions to the person and a lack of action got him killed. The same could have happened to the officer in this sift. How do you know that man was not going to start grappling with the officer? Then what? The man steals the officers side arm and kills him? The man pulls out a hidden weapon and kills the officer? Maybe you need another example?

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8P5mB6grzf4

The officer in this sift told the guy to stop advancing towards him. The guy repeatedly ignored the officers commands. The officer has no idea what the suspect is capable of and felt sufficiently threatened to shoot considering what the suspect could be capable of. What do you think he was doing? Going in for a hug? This was either suicide by cop, or he was trying to get in close enough to do something.

I can't defend anything the suspect was doing, but I also can't believe that the officer didn't consider a single non-lethal alternative.

When I saw the obvious 100% difference in the way the officer reacted to one slowly shuffling, hands on head advancing person vs the other officer totally under reacting to an angry, shouting, agitated, hands all over, violent advancing person that then gets a gun and still is not fired at, yes, the first thing that came to mind when I asked 'why did they act so oppositely?' was 'one offender was white, so not a threat even while actually attacking the officer, the other brown, so a terrifying threat when creeping towards the officer.' Do you have another interpretation you would wish to share?

You must be trolling with that. One officer shot an unarmed man who crept towards him, hands up. One officer didn't shoot someone who rushed him, punched him (I think, sounded like it), screamed about killing him, went back to his car and got a gun, aimed, waited, aimed more, waited, and shot...only then was he threatening enough. WTF?!? Do you not see the entirety of reasonable action between those two extremes?

Not going to bother anymore, you're clearly just looking to argue.

The problem in this video here isn't what could've happened to the cop or how threatening the suspect was or even racial bias. That shit is secondary.
A man got shot 2 times in the chest because he did not do what he was told to. He was passive agressive and was murdered because of it. That was murder.
If a law enforcement officer can not subdue a single person without shooting them in the chest, he is either beyond incompetent and his whole organisation needs to be seriously reevaluted concerning their training methods and oversight practices or he just enjoys murdering the shit out of people.
There is no argument that there was not another option how to react. Even if he didn't have a taser, he should have at least some pepperspray. Or hey, try firing a warning shot. If that fails, you can still immobilize the suspect by shooting them in the legs. However, dead men don't sue, right?
That man got murdered and I don't give a shit why. He was killed without reason.

You don't know what the suspects intentions were. Why was he ignoring the officers commands? Why was he verbally provoking the officer? You seem to miss the fact that the suspect first was trying to evade capture. Is he capable of trying something more drastic? It only takes 2 second for the situation to go another direction.

This guy looks friendly enough, coming out to meet the officer. He's just shuffling back to his truck to get his information right? Wrong.
https://youtu.be/eSxuhZ3HdQo

Anything could happen, my fingers might turn into 5 golden firearms, or I might shoot him with laser eyes.....no one knows another's intentions, ever.
Other instances are other instances, not this one. This one was an unarmed, slow, not violent drunk, not a violent armed, out of control person.
You just want to argue. You have no point.
Good bye.

Actually, I do have a point and I am not arguing. Its called debating a difference of opinion. Other instances are not just other instances. They groom the way we act and react to situations based on past examples of previous encounters and behaviors. This guy tried to 1: Evade police in his car, 2: endangered the public in doing so, 3: refused to obey the officers requests to stay back, 4: verbally provoked the officer, 5: acted erratically once out of the car. This all attributed to a hostile situation. I'm sorry you decide to "argue" irrational points of golden firearms and laser beams. It seems you're the one with no point. You say that nobody knows another persons intentions. By that same fact, how do you know this guy was going to be non-violent after disregarding the officers simple command to stay back and advanced towards the officer. The suspects actions contributed to the outcome of the situation as much as the way the officers did.

"Good Bye."

Then your debate skills are severely lacking. My debate coach would have suspended you from the team.
You used at least 2 completely different scenarios to attempt to show what this one COULD have turned out like...if only the guy had been acting completely differently and been armed....that's like me saying your steak tastes like chicken, let me prove it by showing you some chicken dishes. See, I'm right, those taste like chicken, so your steak must taste like chicken...or it COULD taste like chicken....if only it were chicken. You don't know that steak won't suddenly start tasting like chicken...so it's rational for me to keep saying it already does, or at least could, and should be treated like it's chicken. You don't know that steaks intentions. ;-)
YOU brought up ridiculous comparisons between dis-similar situations and adding "if" and "could", I merely pointed out how silly that is with (also silly) magic golden finger guns. It's just as likely that my fingers will turn into golden guns as it is this unarmed man will suddenly be armed. The fact remains, he wasn't.
Assuming he is armed and dangerous is not a reasonable reaction to someone who's hands are empty and visible, and has no obvious 'bulge' anywhere indicating he's carrying, and is not making furtive moves, and is moving slowly, hands up.

Because someone COULD turn violent, but totally has not, is not an excuse to kill them. Are you really so dense you don't get that? It honestly seems that's the case.

I hope you mean 'good bye', this conversation between us was worthless, and still seems like you simply want to argue....poorly.

He probably would have had a stern word with you about all the assumptions you're making too.

You've said the guy was unarmed as if it was an established fact when he was shot when it wasn't. You have said he was non-violent but his movement and demeanour certainly weren't submissive, and one really has to wonder what he was planning to do when he got close enough to the officer, kiss him?

My position in all this is that as a Brit I think it's madness that police have to go around with guns all the time. This simply couldn't happen in the UK so as far as I'm concerned it's a fully avoidable situation, just put all the fucking guns down.

However, it's really not that easy. Guns are everywhere in America so the police have to act accordingly. It's really easy with hindsight to say all the things you're saying but in the heat of the moment that cop has to assume the guy is armed and dangerous. That's the effect of having guns everywhere.

They're on the edge of a highway at night, the guy is lit with flashing lights and car headlights going past. This makes seeing bulges or anything like that that might indicate a weapon very difficult and yet you think the officer should have been able to tell this and be happy to risk his life on it? Bullshit.

People are suggesting that under the same circumstances it's a simple job to aim for an extremity and it's a guaranteed hit. Really? It's that easy? So easy you'd stake your life on it?

The guy committed suicide by cop. Plain and simple. He wasn't a compliant victim, he was a threat to the officer. His shuffling was strange and that in isolation isn't threatening, but shuffling closer and closer to an armed officer is a different story.

Maybe the cop should have pulled a tazer first? That wouldn't help much if the guy came out of the car with a gun. Or would it? I don't know. If a tazer would have worked in that situation please put me right, I'm no expert. To me it seems if a guy comes out of the car with a gun and points it at the officer then a gun would be more use in defence than a tazer. Same with pepper spray.

So maybe the officer should put the gun away as soon as he's established that the guy isn't armed? That's fine, I'm all in agreement there. But nowhere in the video is he able to establish that as fact. So if he started with a gun he sure as hell should still have it drawn all the way through this video.

I'm really fucking glad I don't have to deal with anything like this in the UK. It's shit that this happens. But given the prevalence of guns in the US I can't see any way this could have gone differently without risking the situation becoming like the videos reiwan posted.

Totally ridiculous.
Better be naked in public or when driving from now on, or be prepared to be shot as an armed assailant if you mishear or receive contradicting or confusing instructions, and no suing over it, you just said that's totally reasonable.
I disagree wholeheartedly.
'If things were different, things could be different.' is not a valid argument, IMO.

*kill

Permanently discarding this video - kill requested by newtboy.