This story is a sad one - a man shot and killed by a transit police officer on New Year's Day. Though it is terribly heartbreaking, I have a hard time believing that a police officer would shoot someone unprovoked. I say that because I'm just not sure why an unarmed man would ever need to be shot...unless he posed some sort of threat. At one point, I heard (or read) that he was shot in the back, although I don't know if this was the case. If so, then the officer has some problems because I'm not sure how an unarmed man facing away could pose a threat (unless the officer was trying to protect other people, not himself). That being said, if I look at this news clip I am supposed to believe that the police officer is a violent racist. Was it necessary to refer to the victim as an "unarmed black man"? Why not just "unarmed man"? How will this police officer get a fair trial (which everyone deserves) if the news is inciting racial tensions?
