We will have to agree to disagree on that.
Heck, in LA they even re-tried the Rodney King cops 25 years ago until they came up with the right verdict. “Civil rights violations” are the catch-all when a jury doesn’t arrive at the politically-correct verdict.
And they had to convict that North Charleston police officer of the same. Shooting a fleeing and unarmed suspect multiple times in the back wasn't enough to get the local jury to convict. But civil rights violations isn't an option in most cases.
I’m sure shooting a fleeing and unarmed suspect can be justified (if the shooter was the Unabomber, for example - a clear threat to others’ safety if loose/free). I don’t know the rationale for the North Charleston cop’s shooting of the unarmed man (I saw the footage), but I don’t second-guess juries. IIRC, they didn’t acquit the cop; they just wouldn’t convict him (hung jury or mistrial) - and I’m sure the jury had more information than our “free press” ever shared with us.
The LA cops were actually acquitted by a jury, who saw the whole tape of the incident (in which Rodney King initially attacked them); our ghetto denizens rioted because our “free press” showed us only the second half of that video.