Can anyone even distinguish what the issue is anymore? Jeeze...no one can contest that the officer had a right to pull this guy over. This guy was clearly in violation of the law. The police had every right to do what he did....UP UNTIL THE POINT HE PULLED OUT A GUN AND SHOT HIM IN THE HEAD.
I mean, why are you guys compelled to defend a police who used deadly force in a traffic violation? If it is discovered that this guy pulled a gun or threatened the safety of the officer in any way, I'll retract my statement. But for crying out loud, how can anyone defend this guy. If it was an accidental discharge....fine. But that still leads back to the same point...why was it necessary to pull a weapon anyway? Even if the guy WAS fleeing...you don't shoot him. Do you really believe that this guy could have drove off and not be caught later? The officer knew the car, had a camera that recorded th physical features of the guy, and let's face it...the way this guy was dressed he could be identified and picked up later so easily it isn't even questionable.
I just don't get how it's even arguable.