looks pretty clear to me. Also the smoke at 10:20, was someone firing from the car?
The order of events is something like this:
- The car is initially stopped peacefully
- Some sort of exchange between police and those in the car take place, but without audio we can't say what
- The driver makes the choice to flee and gets away
- Some time up the road the police have a roadblock (unclear if this was established before or after the initial stop)
- Guy sees police at roadblock and swerves into snow (potentially striking an officer who is trying to stop them, but looks like this is not a deliberate situation)
- Guy gets out of car with hands up. At least two officers have firearms pointed at him, one from the woods with what looks like a carbine or rifle, one from the street side with what looks like a pistol.
- Both are at fairly close range, less than 10 feet certainly
- Presumably they are saying things at this point, but we don't have audio.
- At some point he takes down his arms and is reaching into his left pocket or the left side of his waistband with his right arm.
- Officers, fearing that he is reaching for a firearm, shoot him. It is unclear if he was reaching for a firearm. It is unclear how many times they shoot him but it looks quite quick. We quickly see the left officer lower his weapon.
- The guy falls to the ground, and both officers withdraw, presumably to figure out if he has been disabled or is still a threat.
- Shortly afterwards, a series of flashbangs or smoke devices are used against the car. I think this is what you are talking about when you say "was someone firing from the car?"
- After a few minutes, they are able to get the remaining occupants of the car out peacefully. At this point, a laser sight is trained on the fallen man, presumably in case he is still a threat.
To me, this looks relatively by the book, absent audio that would provide some extenuating circumstance. In light of the fact that the officers used nonlethal force against the other occupants of the car and the initial stop did not involve lethal force, it certainly does not look like they tried to kill him in cold blood. Likewise, the officers do not fire until he reaches into his jacket/waistband. Now, it may have been a panic move by him, he didn't necessarily intend to harm him, but given the prior statements he made, the likelihood of him being armed, and the nature of the move it seems to me like the shot was justified.
Most of the criticism I'd have of this would be broader parameters of police use of force: why not shoot to disable (I know the arguments made against shooting to disable, I don't find them convincing especially in light of non-US law enforcement experiences), why not use the nonlethal ammunition during the initial exchange, etc. But I don't think that makes this a murder.
It further seems that once the initial stop happened, most of the decisions that lead to the eventual shooting death were made by the victim (i.e. the perp), not law enforcement.
As I said when I previously posted here I don't think death is good, even of bad people. A better situation would have been if the driver had avoided reaching for something, or got on the ground faster, or didn't go off the road, or didn't speed off, or wasn't part of an armed occupation of a wildlife reserve. But given that all of those things happened, this seemed like the least bad outcome, and I think that's something to be thankful for.