Man Runs After, Shoots and Kills Black Man In Arkansas

The man who was doing the chasing is a police officer and the other man had a gun in his hand. Nevertheless, the police officer was running after the guy, brought a gun to the scene and subsequently shot the guy. I don't think the officer had any intent to shoot anyone that day, but he created a situation where a man was subsequently shot. Did he really need to chase and then shoot a fleeing man? It seems the only thing wrong the guy did was have an expired license plate.

View attachment 1834
View attachment 1835

http://www.foxnews.com/us/2013/07/16/police-shooting-in-arkansas-sparks-protests/?test=latestnews

 

Coin did you mean to say that the guy been chased had a gun in his hand? (The man who was doing the chasing is a police officer and the other man had a gun in his hand.)If so then the officer I do think was within his rights to shoot

 

He's trying to be clever. Zimmerman "brought a gun to the scene" too, and he's attempting to equate the two.

Zimmerman wasn't a cop though, and used faulty techniques in his pursuit of Martin and his use of a firearm.

This cop appears to have used justifiable lethal force, since the suspect was apparently standing-up after picking up a gun that fell out of his waistband.

 

A citizen carrying a firearm is just as legal as a police officer carrying a firearm.

Are you saying that Zimmerman wasn't trained? If he was trained, then what techniques learned during his training did he use that were (as you say) "faulty"? How was his use of a firearm "faulty"? He used it to save his life that night. How is that "faulty"?

Unlike this police officer, Zimmerman has gone through the justice system and was shown to have "used justifiable lethal force". It remains to be seen whether or not the officer "used justifiable lethal force". You're quick to say the cop was right, but equally as quick to say Zimmerman was wrong. Do you just not understand basic tenets of the justice system?

 

Another point people seem to have missed is that Zimmerman was a neighborhood watch leader and checking on an unfamiliar person inside the gated community he was patrolling. Approaching a person fitting the description of a suspected burglar is not only within the scope of his role, I would say it was his responsibility.
Another aspect that was only brought up briefly, was the issue as to whether or not the path Martin was taking was in fact a "shortcut" home. One investigator said walking through Zimmerman's neighborhood was in no way a path Martin would be taking if he was heading home as the prosecution claimed.

 

People tend to forget. Zimmerman wasn't found innocent he was found not guilty.

 

I don't think people forget so much as they don't care to point it out, since this is a political site...and truth is irrelevant when arguing for a particular party. I appear to do that here myself sometimes, but I do it as a counter to an idiotic comment.

In reality, I think of both major parties as having problems connecting with citizens. They both want control, but I side with democrats since they at least try to help the poor in a meaningful way, where the republicans have an "Every man for himself!" or "Personal responsibility!" attitude that ignores people's suffering.

So they probably haven't forgotten, they are just ignoring it to make a political point. My point would then be: "So was O.J. ...until the civil trial." since the burden of proof in a civil trial isn't as tough as the criminal trial.

Another point they "forget" is that prosecutors have limited resources. They can only get a certain amount of help from people, where defendants can sometimes raise enough cash to hire the best of the best defense attorneys. In this case, the prosecution was wayyy outmatched, and lost the trial during jury selection. There's no way 6 women are Zimmerman's peers, but the prosecution wasn't skilled enough to include hispanic men or blacks into the jury. IMO, the case was lost during jury selection.

 

Another thing people seem to forget...Gulity or Not Guilty were the jurists only 2 options. Whose to say "Innocent" wouldn't have been the verdict had that been what they were charged to decide?

 

Absolutely correct! That's what many people don't seem to understand. The defense doesn't have to prove a person's innocence, the prosecution has to prove a person's guilt. The jury (which both the prosecution and defense empaneled through a process known as voir dire) found him not guilty.

Justice has been served. To the people screaming for "Justice for Trayvon", please tell us what justice you would like.