here’s a video that tells a story.
About 12 seconds in, you can catch a glimps of Ashli behind several men, one wrapped in a Gadsten flag. She’s clearly a female, with blond hair showing (that is she’s not disguised). Men are bashing on the door glass closest to the shooter, the panes of which are broken or shattered. One man is bashing the door exactly where Ashli would be in a few seconds. The videographer concentrates on the gun for the next 12 seconds.
Ashli again comes into view at 29 seconds. Was she hopping up like she’s going to get a better look thru the window, maybe she was going to go thru, maybe she was going to tell the shooter to holster his weapon? Cueing the tape to exactly 29 seconds, you’ll see the window is clear, she’s not “in” it, but that might be her hand reaching for the door. At 31 seconds, 2 seconds later, she’s already falling backwards, from hopping to falling backwards. Very much an up, shoot, down, fast as that.
If you're breaking into a room or a building and there is someone on the other side pointing a gun at you, then you stop what you're doing and walk away.
To assume the other person will act with restraint is to demonstrate an incredible amount of confidence in the training, the intellect, and the composure of the gun-bearer; that the person will not shoot is an assumption that nobody should ever make.
It's a common theme here in the forums that if a motorist had just listened to the commands of the police officer who stopped him, he would still be alive.
The principle applies here as well. When the guy showed up with the gun drawn, it was clear he meant business, even if he may have been dumber than a bag of hammers; everyone on the viewer's side of the doors should have stopped immediately.
There is a different video that shows Ashli from the rear, climbing through the window when she was shot. She falls back into the room immediately after she is shot.
I downloaded that video, but my original link is no longer good.
I see that link you posted is the unedited, longer version of the shooter clip (but with beeps added) and it, too, has the warning shouts.
So the only video evidence that refutes the warnings is cropped, has poor sound, or is muted. We’re in crazy town now, there’s someone here who will accept the edited clip on twitter as truth but won’t watch the original longer clip from the same camera because he doesn’t want it complicated.