Er, not really, you're spinning it pretty hard.
An officer stopped a man that had just committed a felony strong arm robbery, the man then attacked the officer in his car. The man fled, the officer exited his vehicle to stop him. The man then turned and came at him again, the officer firing to stop him.
"the officer chased him down" makes this seem like some vendetta rather than the officers sworn duty and greatly exaggerates the distance involved.
"and shot him, when he was unarmed" ignores completely that the person had already assaulted the officer and was now turning to do it again.
When the officer yelled "stop", he could have stopped, he could have actually put his hands up and went to his knees, but he didn't. He turned to the officer to present a threat again. By the same token, if the officer wanted to shoot the guy that just assaulted him, he could have simply stepped from his car and fired and the guy would have had no chance to turn.
From what I heard, the officer involved resigned. He should sue the parents for loss of wages and defamation of character for the damages their son caused.
- - - Updated - - -
There are plenty of legitimate cop shootings, and obviously some racist cops that harass folks and a few shootings that are unjustified.
But damned if the news don't focus on the worst examples. Like with the guy that stopped in the middle of the street, that's worthy of discussion, but instead they focused on the guy walking around with a gun that got shot...
It's why I think they don't want a real case, they want a murky case so folks can say "this was justified" while other folks say "there's lots of racist cops!" rather than a case where folks can agree.