The principal issue is: why was an unarmed
man shot on his doorstep by the police.
This focus conveniently absolves the police
of wrong doing; e.g. "if someone didn't call
in a problem, no one would be dead".
The excuse used in this case what that it looked like he was pulling a gun from his waistband. It is conveniently difficult to disprove this unless his hands are already high in the air. So basically he was shot on sight.
Ostensibly because he reached for his waistband instead of immediately putting up his hands.
Having seen the video, it looked more like he was trying to shield his eyes from the light the police was shining directly at him _from across the street_. I don't know why this isn't reported more accurately, they shot the guy from what looks like a good 20-30 meters away.
Because they're already laying the groundwork that it was his fault, not the trigger happy cops.
Right, I said "ostensibly" above, but the cynic in me thinks, "the police got ahead of the narrative by saying he moved first". I don't really know what happened (other than a person got shot by the police when they absolutely should not have).
Yea, they wouldn't say that, because obviously it's not acceptable to shoot someone for moving their hands further up, but these days up is often down.