The man was Ethan Freeman, 37, a resident of Thornton, New Hampshire. The officer was Matthew Yao of the Thornton Police Department.

On October 19, 2020, the two men encountered each other several times. Their earlier interactions were largely calm and nonconfrontational. By late afternoon, however, the circumstances had changed dramatically.

Freeman was back at his residence. A 911 call brought Yao to the property. Within minutes, Freeman was outside, bleeding and moving toward the officer while repeatedly threatening him.

Yao backed away and repeatedly ordered Freeman to stay back.

When Freeman closed the distance to roughly ten feet, Yao fired twice.

Freeman died at the scene.

Months later, the New Hampshire Attorney General's Office concluded that Yao's use of deadly force was legally justified and announced that the officer would not face criminal charges. Investigators relied heavily on body-camera footage, patrol-car video, witness testimony and other evidence in reaching that conclusion.

THE STORY ACTUALLY STARTED HOURS BEFORE THE SHOOTING

Looking only at the final bodycam sequence can create the impression that Yao encountered Freeman for the first time outside the residence.

He did not.

Earlier that day, Freeman appeared at a local elementary school complaining about chest pain.

Yao responded and interacted with him there.

The footage from this earlier encounter is striking because of how different it is from what happened later.

Yao recognized Freeman and spoke calmly with him. Freeman was eventually transported for medical attention, with Yao accompanying him during part of that process.

According to subsequent reporting, Freeman indicated that he had not slept for several days. Authorities later described the day's events as involving serious behavioral and mental-health concerns.

Nothing about that earlier interaction resembled the final confrontation.

That contrast would become one of the most important elements of the case.

The same officer who later fired the fatal shots had spent part of the day attempting to help Freeman obtain medical assistance.

FREEMAN EVENTUALLY RETURNED HOME

Later that day, Freeman was back at the residence where he rented a ground-floor apartment.

The homeowner lived in another part of the same property.

According to the Attorney General's investigation, the situation deteriorated significantly after Freeman returned.

The homeowner eventually called 911 seeking assistance.

Reports indicated that Freeman had injured himself and was bleeding. Sounds of objects being damaged could also be heard from his apartment.

Officer Yao responded.

Importantly, he initially arrived alone.

The official investigation states that Yao walked toward Freeman's apartment without his service pistol drawn.

At this stage, Yao was responding to someone he already knew and had interacted with calmly earlier that same day.

THE SITUATION INSIDE THE APARTMENT WAS VERY DIFFERENT

Yao attempted to communicate with Freeman.

According to the Attorney General's findings, the officer encountered a dramatically different situation from the one he had experienced hours earlier.

Freeman was bleeding and behaving erratically.

The official investigation describes Freeman shouting obscenities and threatening Yao.

The officer withdrew from the immediate area around the apartment and attempted to communicate from a greater distance.

His firearm was now drawn.

But rather than immediately moving toward Freeman, Yao continued talking to him.

At one point, he reminded Freeman that they had seen each other earlier that day.

The bodycam therefore records something more complicated than a simple confrontation between a police officer and an unknown suspect.

Yao knew who Freeman was.

Freeman knew who Yao was.

And Yao continued trying to communicate with him even after the situation had become threatening.

REPEATED THREATS CHANGED THE OFFICER'S ASSESSMENT

According to investigators, Freeman repeatedly threatened Yao's life.

Those threats became extremely important in the later legal analysis.

Police use-of-force cases are not judged only by whether a person ultimately possessed a weapon.

Investigators must examine what the officer reasonably perceived at the moment force was used.

That includes behavior, distance, verbal threats, environmental conditions and the amount of time available for the officer to react.

Yao radioed that his life had been threatened.

He nevertheless continued trying to communicate with Freeman.

Approximately 70 seconds of conversation occurred while Freeman remained inside the apartment after Yao had repositioned himself.

Then the situation changed again.

FREEMAN CAME THROUGH A WINDOW

Freeman eventually exited the apartment through a broken window.

He was bleeding.

The Attorney General's report states that Freeman then moved directly toward Yao while continuing to threaten him.

Yao began retreating.

This part of the encounter was recorded not only by his body-worn camera but also by cameras associated with his patrol vehicle.

That second perspective became important because it showed the movement of both men more clearly.

Yao was backing away.

Freeman was advancing.

The officer repeatedly ordered him to stay back.

But the distance continued shrinking.

THE LANDLORD SAW THE CONFRONTATION

The shooting was not documented solely by police cameras.

The homeowner also witnessed the confrontation from inside the residence.

According to the Attorney General's investigation, the landlord described Yao as speaking calmly during the encounter and saw Freeman advancing while Yao moved backward.

The witness also recalled hearing the officer repeatedly tell Freeman to stay back.

That account became significant because investigators could compare an independent eyewitness's description with the recordings.

The evidence was therefore not dependent solely upon Yao's recollection after the shooting.

THE DISTANCE BECAME CRITICAL

Yao continued retreating.

But Freeman was gaining ground.

According to the state's reconstruction, Freeman approached faster than Yao could retreat.

Eventually, only about ten feet separated them.

This was the point at which Yao had to make a decision.

The officer later explained that he believed Freeman was going to reach him and potentially take control of his firearm.

That fear was evaluated against the circumstances visible in the footage and the threats investigators said Freeman had made.

Yao fired twice.

Freeman fell.

The encounter that had begun only minutes earlier was over.

THE AUTOPSY CONFIRMED TWO GUNSHOT WOUNDS

Freeman died at the scene.

An autopsy was performed the following day.

The New Hampshire Attorney General's Office announced that Freeman had sustained two gunshot wounds to the chest.

The medical examiner classified the manner of death as homicide.

That terminology is sometimes misunderstood.

In medical-examiner terminology, “homicide” means that a person's death resulted from the actions of another person. It does not by itself mean that a criminal homicide occurred.

Whether Yao's actions constituted a crime was a separate legal question requiring a full investigation.

THE INVESTIGATION TURNED TO OFFICER YAO'S DECISION

Once Freeman died, investigators had to determine whether Yao's decision to fire was lawful.

This required reconstructing what happened immediately before the shots.

Investigators had unusually extensive evidence.

They had Yao's body-camera footage.

They had patrol-vehicle footage.

They had radio communications.

They had physical evidence from the scene.

They had the landlord's eyewitness account.

They also interviewed Yao.

All of these sources could be compared.

That matters because an officer's statement following a shooting does not automatically determine whether the shooting was justified.

Investigators examine whether the physical and recorded evidence supports that account.

In this case, prosecutors ultimately concluded that it did.

WHY FREEMAN BEING UNARMED DID NOT END THE LEGAL ANALYSIS

One of the most important facts is that Freeman did not have a firearm when Yao shot him.

For many viewers, that may immediately raise the question of why deadly force was used.

The Attorney General's Office addressed that issue through the legal standard governing deadly force.

The central question was not simply:

Did Freeman have a gun?

Instead, investigators considered whether Yao reasonably believed Freeman presented an imminent threat of death or serious bodily injury.

Yao had heard repeated threats.

He had watched Freeman emerge through broken glass while bleeding.

He had repeatedly ordered him to stop.

He had retreated.

And despite that retreat, Freeman continued closing the distance.

According to Yao, he feared Freeman could reach him and seize his service weapon.

Prosecutors concluded that this fear was objectively reasonable under the circumstances.

WHAT ABOUT THE TASER?

Another obvious question concerned less-lethal options.

Yao was not equipped only with a firearm.

The Attorney General's report states that he also carried a Taser, OC spray and baton.

Why not use one of those?

Yao explained that by the time Freeman was approaching him, his firearm was already drawn and Freeman was too close for him to safely holster it and transition to another weapon.

Investigators evaluated that explanation against the video.

They concluded that the rapidly closing distance supported Yao's assessment that he did not have sufficient time to safely switch tools.

This became an important part of the state's justification analysis.

BODYCAM PROVIDED MORE THAN A VIEW OF THE SHOOTING

The bodycam was especially valuable because it documented events before the final seconds.

It showed Yao's earlier interaction with Freeman.

It recorded his attempts to communicate.

It captured Freeman's behavior.

It recorded threats and commands.

It preserved the officer's retreat.

And it documented the final approach.

This allowed investigators to examine the encounter as a sequence rather than treating the two gunshots as an isolated event.

Assistant Attorney General Peter Hinckley later emphasized the importance of the footage in assessing whether Yao's description of his fear corresponded with what actually occurred.

That is one of the greatest evidentiary advantages of body-worn cameras.

They do not automatically prove that an officer's actions were right or wrong.

But they can provide contemporaneous evidence against which later statements can be tested.

THE STATE ANNOUNCED ITS DECISION IN MARCH 2021

The investigation continued for months.

On March 16, 2021, New Hampshire authorities publicly announced their conclusion.

Officer Matthew Yao's use of deadly force was determined to be legally justified.

No criminal charges would be filed against him.

Prosecutors concluded that Yao reasonably believed Freeman was about to use deadly physical force against him.

The decision did not mean that the outcome was not tragic.

It meant that, under the applicable law and circumstances investigators reconstructed, prosecutors did not believe Yao's decision to fire constituted a criminal offense.

WHY THE FULL TIMELINE CHANGES THE STORY

Watching only the shooting provides an incomplete picture.

Hours earlier, Yao was interacting with Freeman in an entirely different environment.

The officer was helping someone who appeared to need medical attention.

Later, he returned after another request for assistance.

Then the circumstances changed dramatically.

This timeline illustrates something important about crisis calls.

The same individual can present very differently at different points during the same day.

An interaction that begins cooperatively does not guarantee that a later encounter will remain cooperative.

And an officer's previous familiarity with someone can potentially complicate decision-making rather than simplify it.

Yao knew Freeman.

That familiarity initially appeared to encourage him to keep communicating.

But by the final seconds, prosecutors concluded that the immediate threat had overtaken everything that had happened earlier.

THE CASE ALSO RAISES QUESTIONS ABOUT CRISIS RESPONSE

Freeman's death inevitably raises broader questions about how communities respond when medical, behavioral and law-enforcement emergencies overlap.

Earlier in the day, Freeman had been seeking medical assistance.

Hours later, police were again being called to assist him.

The final encounter became a deadly-force situation.

No single bodycam recording can answer every policy question raised by that progression.

But the sequence demonstrates why behavioral-crisis calls can be among the most unpredictable situations emergency responders face.

Police officers may arrive expecting to assist someone in distress.

Paramedics may be needed.

Mental-health professionals may potentially be relevant.

Yet circumstances can shift rapidly if the individual becomes threatening or physically aggressive.

The Ethan Freeman case contains all of those tensions.

THE RELEASE OF THE VIDEO WAS ITSELF SIGNIFICANT

Authorities eventually released the footage publicly.

According to reporting at the time, Freeman's family did not want the video made public.

Prosecutors nevertheless determined that transparency surrounding a fatal police shooting was important because the investigation concerned a homicide and the public needed to understand the evidence supporting the state's conclusion.

That decision highlights another difficult aspect of body-camera transparency.

Public release can promote accountability.

But the recordings often capture people during the most traumatic, vulnerable or disturbing moments of their lives.

There is no easy balance between those interests.

OFFICER YAO ALSO FACED THE AFTERMATH

The effects of the shooting did not end when investigators determined that Yao's actions were lawful.

Reporting after the Attorney General's decision indicated that Yao had been on light duty and had undergone a psychological evaluation.

Thornton Police Chief Ken Miller said the officer had taken the shooting hard.

After prosecutors announced that no charges would be filed, Yao was expected to return to active duty.

This aspect of officer-involved shootings often receives less attention than the footage itself.

A legal determination answers whether prosecutors believe a crime occurred.

It does not erase the psychological consequences of the encounter for everyone involved.

THE THUMBNAIL'S 2023 DATE IS NOT PART OF THE REAL INCIDENT

There is another important point for anyone using the supplied image.

The graphic contains what appears to be an AXON timestamp reading:

2023-11-03

That is inconsistent with the documented Ethan Freeman shooting.

The actual fatal encounter occurred on October 19, 2020. Contemporary reporting from WMUR confirms the date, and the Attorney General's investigation likewise identifies the October 2020 incident.

Therefore, the supplied image should not be presented as an authentic frame from Yao's bodycam.

The authentic footage is publicly available and shows a visibly different scene. PoliceActivity published the released footage in March 2021.

WHY THE REAL FOOTAGE IS MORE IMPORTANT THAN A DRAMATIC THUMBNAIL

A promotional image can capture attention.

But in a case involving someone's death, accuracy matters more than dramatic presentation.

The real footage establishes a sequence that no recreated image can substitute for.

Yao had interacted with Freeman earlier.

He later responded to Freeman's residence.

The situation became threatening.

Yao withdrew and attempted to communicate.

Freeman exited the apartment.

He advanced.

Yao retreated and repeatedly ordered him to stay back.

Freeman continued approaching.

Yao fired when the distance had narrowed dramatically.

Investigators then compared those recorded events with witness testimony, physical evidence and Yao's explanation.

That complete evidentiary picture is what produced the state's legal conclusion.

A TRAGEDY PRESERVED FROM MULTIPLE ANGLES

The Ethan Freeman shooting remains a particularly striking example of why police-camera footage can become so central to use-of-force investigations.

Without video, the public would largely have been left with competing descriptions.

With bodycam and patrol-car footage, investigators could reconstruct the movement, commands and timing of the final confrontation.

That does not make the event less tragic.

Ethan Freeman was 37 years old when he died.

A day that had begun with him seeking medical assistance ended with a fatal police encounter outside his home.

Officer Matthew Yao began that day attempting to help him.

Hours later, Yao was confronted with a situation prosecutors concluded gave him a reasonable belief that his own life was in immediate danger.

Two shots ended the confrontation.

Months of investigation followed.

Ultimately, New Hampshire authorities concluded that the shooting was legally justified and that Yao would not face criminal prosecution.

That conclusion was based not on a thumbnail, a viral clip or speculation about a few seconds of footage.

It was based on the broader timeline, eyewitness evidence, police recordings and the circumstances investigators determined Yao faced at the moment he fired.

And that is the most important lesson from the case.

When bodycam footage captures the final seconds of a fatal encounter, those seconds matter enormously.

But understanding them requires examining everything that happened before the officer pulled the trigger.

In Ethan Freeman's case, that means going back hours earlier, to a very different interaction between the same two men, and following the sequence all the way to the lawn outside Freeman's Thornton residence.

Only then does the full weight of what happened become clear.

Click here to watch the full incident unfold.