already down on the ground. you don t see the moment whether or not chapman turned toward the officers, whether or not chapman pointed something at the officer and you don t see the moment where chapman is shot. john stand by for me. ari melber, you re looking at this. and we know there was a reversal by the city, their opposition to have this released. that s right. this is brand-new video we re looking at. it is difficult as john was saying. but i just want to speak to it. as john mentioned, this is the kind of automatically turning camera. that s not, as we understand it, any human action. this camera was automatically pivoting. that s why you get that jump the officer is moving in the lower third of the frame moving to the right. his gun is drawn, but we don t have information that he indeed shot. but you see him. then that black object you see about a few inches to the right of the orange awning, that is,
frame coming down the street. that s the still. now we play the next one and you see him advancing to the right towards chapman. and you ll see this. if we slow it down and you look there, then this well, that s not the part i want to show you. this is the other part there. there it is. right now, that is the officer there advancing. this was not the officer who shot chapman but was advancing on him. the next still you see, the next thing you see is when the camera jumps, it s the automatic jump and you see what we believe to be chapman on the ground. there the black blob just to the right of that orange awning. the reason we ve cut this up having shown it fully in context before is you see in the three stills what the dispute is about. did chapman there, who is now we see fallen to the ground, did he do anything in those moments before to threaten officers or leave them to feel threatened to justify the shooting? that s the debate. the way it unfolds on this video
in the street, right? that s the subtle distinction that can get lost. what is going to be fought over in this video that you re looking at and you see the officer question there in the lower part of the screen and the dark sort of dark object that looks like could or could not be a person to the right of the orange awning, that we believe is mr. chapman who fell and was killed. but the question isn t simply what did the officers think or what was the potential danger. the legal question is what you see on this video and other information we re obtaining in our newsroom as we speak, do you see the justification for deadly force as presented by a threat by this individual. you can chime in. as a policing subject, what else could police have done short of using that deadly force? well, listen, they re out on the street, you re out in the open. you re going to have to chase this guy down. this is what the police do every day. we re taught we have a variety of weapons that are at our dis