Someone called saying that Sterling threatened them with a gun. The police show up and something, that we don't know yet, happened before the recording. What we do know is that the police tried to arrest him, and they tried to taze him--twice. The tazers, as they often are, are ineffective. One of the officers tackles Sterling, and they struggle to gain control over him. 

 

As they're on top of him, one of them sees him reaching for the gun. He yells that he had a gun, but he can't let go of his hands because Sterling is actively reaching for the weapon. The second vehicle shows the top of Sterling's arm on the right-side and it appears flush with his body, presumably as someone would appear when they're reaching in their pockets. Before shooting him, however, the officers tells him not to move. Of course, he continues to move even though he has a gun pointed at him. 

 

They found a gun in the same pocket that Sterling reached for, the same pocket the officer said he saw the gun, and they had prior knowledge that he threatened someone else with it.

 

So, please, tell me why this isn't justified. I'll admit it looks brutal, but they don't have time to work their issues out. He's reaching for a gun.

 

I'm genuinely interested in knowing how others would handle it differently? I don't see another solution.

 

Just because it looks brutal, it doesn't mean it wasn't justified. 

---