This appears to be a staged video. Perhaps a training video?
However, that includes law enforcement officers - hence, while one should never blindly accept that the cops shot the person for no reason without further information, in the same vein one should never give the police officers total concurrence just because a cop said it happened a certain way. Thus, I agree with the statement that we shouldn't just accept the 'proof-cops-are-b@st@rds' videos on blind faith ...maybe there is something off camera we did not see/was not captured. At the same time, police officers are human beings, and thus can also be liars and schemers (e.g. the old lady shot down and the cops planting some drugs on her to try and somewhat justify the error).
I personally analyze both ways.
It’s a police training video, not a real event.
They created a situation where a viewer might reach a different conclusion.
It proves a singular point.
This is a training video. The easiest way to tell is that after the perp is shot, the officer in front begins to re-holster his weapon, even though the perp is still holding a gun in his right hand. In a real shooting, the guns stay out until they *have* to be put back in their holsters.
Typically, a police officer will re-holster quickly when there hasn’t been any shooting, and another office has his gun on the perp. But if real bullets have been flying, the guns stay out.
Another cue is that only three bullets are discharged. If police shoot someone, they often intend that they stay shot.
The big technical question I would ask the officer behind the perp is “What were your aiming points?” This is a good thought problem, but not for an obvious reason that most people don’t think about shooting someone in the back. The real reason is the *other* officer in front. The bullets could have gone through the perp and hit the other officer.