BODYCAM OF ETHAN FREEMAN: WHAT HAPPENED BEFORE THE FATAL THORNTON POLICE SHOOTING

The thumbnail identifies the incident as “BODYCAM OF ETHAN FREEMAN SHOOTING” and displays an apparent body-camera scene in a wooded residential area. The image itself should be treated as a THUMBNAIL/ILLUSTRATION, not as independently verified evidence of the exact moment shown.

The underlying case is real and occurred in THORNTON, NEW HAMPSHIRE, ON OCTOBER 19, 2020. Ethan Freeman, 37, was fatally shot by Thornton Police Officer Matthew Yao after an encounter outside Freeman's apartment. In March 2021, the New Hampshire Attorney General's Office concluded that Yao's use of deadly force was LEGALLY JUSTIFIED, and prosecutors announced that no criminal charges would be filed against the officer.

One important correction to the thumbnail: the date visible on it says 2023-10-28, but the documented Freeman shooting happened in 2020, not 2023.

THE DAY BEGAN WITH A REQUEST FOR MEDICAL HELP

The events that eventually led to the shooting unfolded over several encounters between Freeman and Officer Yao.

According to the investigation, a homeowner contacted 911 after becoming concerned about Freeman, who was living in a basement apartment at a residence on Four Wheel Drive.

Earlier that day, Freeman had gone to a local school and complained about CHEST PAIN, asking for medical assistance.

Officer Yao encountered him there and helped arrange an ambulance.

The interaction was initially described as relatively calm. Yao later accompanied Freeman during the medical response. Investigators reviewing the body-camera recordings were therefore able to see how the relationship between the two men changed over the course of the day.

Later, however, Freeman returned to his apartment and his behavior became increasingly erratic.

THE 911 CALL THAT BROUGHT OFFICER YAO BACK

A subsequent 911 CALL brought Yao to Freeman's residence.

The Attorney General's investigation said Freeman had barricaded himself inside the apartment and that objects inside had been broken.

When Yao approached the apartment, he attempted to communicate with Freeman.

According to the investigation, Freeman became increasingly hostile and made repeated threats against the officer.

Yao moved away from the immediate entrance and attempted to maintain distance while continuing to communicate.

The body-camera footage became especially important because investigators could compare the officer's later account with what was actually captured during the encounter.

THE MOMENT THE ENCOUNTER ESCALATED

According to investigators, Freeman eventually broke through a window and came outside.

He was BLEEDING and was not carrying a firearm.

The Attorney General's report said Freeman repeatedly threatened Yao while advancing toward him.

Yao had already drawn his service pistol and repeatedly ordered Freeman to STAY BACK.

The officer continued moving backward in an effort to create additional distance.

According to the investigation, Freeman continued advancing despite those commands.

At approximately 10 FEET, Yao fired two shots.

Freeman was struck in the chest and died at the scene. An autopsy later confirmed two gunshot wounds to the chest.

WHY THE BODYCAM FOOTAGE MATTERED

The case became particularly notable because the encounter was captured on BODY-WORN CAMERA.

Yao's patrol vehicle also had cameras that captured portions of the incident, while the homeowner reportedly witnessed the shooting from the residence.

That created multiple sources of evidence for investigators.

The body camera documented the officer's commands, the interaction leading up to the shooting and the shooting itself.

According to New Hampshire officials, the footage was important because it allowed investigators to compare Yao's description of events with what could be independently observed on video.

The Attorney General's Office later released footage and findings publicly during a March 2021 briefing.

THE QUESTION OF DEADLY FORCE

One of the central issues in the investigation was whether Yao reasonably believed he faced an IMMINENT DEADLY THREAT.

The investigation found that Freeman was unarmed at the moment he advanced toward the officer.

That fact, however, did not end the legal analysis.

According to prosecutors, Yao believed Freeman could reach him within seconds and potentially gain control of his firearm.

Yao also carried less-lethal equipment, including a TASER and chemical spray.

But he told investigators that he did not believe he had enough time to safely holster his firearm and transition to another weapon while Freeman was rapidly approaching.

The Attorney General's Office concluded that the officer's belief that he faced imminent deadly force was objectively reasonable under the circumstances presented by the investigation.

NO CRIMINAL CHARGES AGAINST THE OFFICER

On March 16, 2021, Acting New Hampshire Attorney General Jane Young announced the conclusion of the investigation.

The state determined that NO CRIMINAL CHARGES would be filed against Officer Matthew Yao.

New Hampshire Public Radio reported that prosecutors concluded the shooting was legally justified under state law.

WMUR likewise reported that investigators concluded Yao was justified in using deadly force after Freeman continued advancing despite repeated commands to stop.

This conclusion came after an investigation involving body-camera footage, patrol-car video, witness interviews, photographs, radio transmissions and other evidence.

It is important to distinguish this official legal conclusion from broader debates about POLICE USE OF FORCE.

The Attorney General's determination addressed whether the officer's conduct violated applicable criminal law. It was not an endorsement of every tactical decision made during the encounter.

A CASE INVOLVING A MENTAL-HEALTH CRISIS

The Freeman case has also been discussed in the broader context of MENTAL-HEALTH CRISES AND POLICE ENCOUNTERS.

Contemporary reporting described Freeman as experiencing serious behavioral and mental-health difficulties.

A later Concord Monitor analysis examined fatal police encounters in New Hampshire and noted that a significant share involved people experiencing mental-health crises.

That broader issue raises questions about how emergency services respond when someone is simultaneously experiencing a medical or behavioral crisis and posing a potential danger.

However, those broader policy questions should be separated from the specific legal finding in Freeman's case.

THE DIFFERENCE BETWEEN “UNARMED” AND “NOT DANGEROUS”

One detail of this case can be easily misunderstood.

Freeman was UNARMED when he advanced toward Yao, according to the investigation.

But prosecutors did not treat the absence of a weapon as automatically eliminating the possibility of deadly force.

Their analysis focused on the total circumstances known to Yao at the time, including the reported threats, Freeman's behavior, his continued advance and the possibility of a close physical struggle over the officer's firearm.

This distinction is central to understanding why the Attorney General's Office reached the conclusion it did.

WHY THUMBNAILS CAN BE MISLEADING

The supplied thumbnail is designed to create immediate drama with BODYCAM, ETHAN FREEMAN, and SHOOTING prominently displayed.

But viewers should be careful about interpreting the image itself.

The date shown in the graphic does not match the documented date of the Freeman shooting. The actual incident occurred on OCTOBER 19, 2020.

The verified story comes from the New Hampshire Attorney General's investigation and contemporaneous reporting—not simply from the thumbnail.

This is especially important with crime videos, where edited footage, screenshots and dramatic graphics can sometimes remove important context.

THE BIGGER LESSON FROM THE FREEMAN CASE

The Ethan Freeman case illustrates why BODYCAM FOOTAGE can become such an important piece of evidence after a police shooting.

The video did not simply document the final seconds. It captured the interaction leading up to them, including communication between the officer and Freeman.

Investigators were therefore able to examine the incident as a sequence rather than viewing the shooting as an isolated moment.

Ultimately, New Hampshire prosecutors concluded that Officer Matthew Yao's use of deadly force was LEGALLY JUSTIFIED and that criminal charges should not be filed against him.

At the same time, the case remains an example of how quickly a MEDICAL OR BEHAVIORAL CRISIS can develop into a deadly police encounter.

For viewers trying to understand what happened, the most useful approach is to look beyond the dramatic thumbnail and examine the BODYCAM, official investigative findings and contemporaneous reporting together.