[quote=@Sanctus Spooki]
Thank you, I'm still on the fence as to what happened, though. Atleast however, this provides an actual counter-argument to the story of "Man shot over noise complaint." The idea that he returned his gun to his waistband after being shot 3 times (once in the head) sounds a bit strange.

<Snipped quote by mdk>

These were my two main reasons for bringing this up, my Google searches were only giving me the same thing from different sites -all of which I would consider a bit left leaning- (maybe my location affected that) and I figured someone else would have better sources than me. That and 4 dollars, let alone 4 cents really is shameful for everyone involved. It implies that while he his death was a mistake, his life was barely worth a Big Kahuna burger. It would have been better saying they were entitled to nothing do to his actions.
[/quote]

It would indeed. Every part of the actual awarding of money sounds broken as hell here -- but, again, my little internal Occam's Razor says there's probably more to THAT story too. Typically cases like this (and like the Trayvon Martin case), the deceased isn't on trial and the decision has little or nothing to do with them. Martin's conduct was immaterial to that case, and Zimmerman's council didn't (and/or couldn't, I honestly can't remember) say anything about it. In this case the question is "What is the state's financial burden for a clean shooting" (it was already tried and found legit years ago) -- and the judge/jury said "not a whole hell of a lot." 

Which makes sense as a precedent -- every asshole who pulls a gun on cops shouldn't earn a paycheck -- but it's also a pretty loaded subject in THIS case, at least based on the version the media's chosen to run with.