containing the quoted information because you have not actually read any, right?
Or at least not many and certainlyly not enough to conclude that officers always lie. In most cases, detailed information on officer shootings is not contained in the police incident report but in the separate “use of force” report the officer is required to file. These reports are normally NOT available to the public. We have not seen one in the Brown case, have we? What is made publicly available eventually is an abridged report –the officer’s name is redacted- by the Board of Police Commissioners or comparable agency that recounts what the officer said about the shooting, what other witnesses said, and what the physical evidence shows. Then the board concludes whether the use of force was justified. They do not accept the officer’s word at face value. Officers may also face a criminal investigation and a Section 1983 lawsuit seeking to hold them personally liable for damages where the officer’s story is examined by the DA and then the plaintiff’s attorneys. To believe that officers routinely execute persons in the street and then figure they can lie about it to get out of trouble, reflects a profound misunderstanding of these gauntlet an officer has to run thru every time he uses his gun on the streets. Maybe you should watch a few episodes of Law and Order to see how it is actually done rather than fantasize that you have read all those “police reports.” LO...corroborating that Michael Brown had his hands up when shot by the police in Ferguson. Check out the video. I've said my peace on this issue, but it's starting to look more and more like a case of excessive force. I bet now, that local authorities will now claimed the shooting was justified because the cop feared for his life even though Brown was running away from him.
If you are afraid to go out there and fear for your life, the person should not be a cop. Go and sell some pretzels or hot dog in a street corner. Cops have to bring a situation under control and that does not include shooting and killing unarmed people.
This case has been proved that it was a case of first degree murder and the history of Police outfits in the state and St. Louis areas supports it.
That's kind of the way our American system of jurisprudence works.
You know, all that stuff about "trial by jury of one's peers", "innocent until proven guilty in a court of law", all that stuff?
Jeez, grow up already, huh? You guys sound like a bunch of twelve-year-olds.
...I can't tell you how many times I've read a police report that said: "I was pointing my service weapon at the suspect. The suspect made a furtive gesture towards his waistband and in fear for my life, I discharged my service weapon. A search of the suspect revealed he did not have any weapon in his waistband."
It's the standard lie told by cops because a dead man tells no tales - the suspect can't say: "The cop is full of crap; I didn't reach for my waistband."
Or maybe the suspect had an uncontrollable desire to scratch his balls right when a cop had his gun pointed at him. Sure, pal.
containing the quoted information because you have not actually read any, right?
Or at least not many and certainlyly not enough to conclude that officers always lie.
In most cases, detailed information on officer shootings is not contained in the police incident report but in the separate “use of force” report the officer is required to file. These reports are normally NOT available to the public. We have not seen one in the Brown case, have we?
What is made publicly available eventually is an abridged report –the officer’s name is redacted- by the Board of Police Commissioners or comparable agency that recounts what the officer said about the shooting, what other witnesses said, and what the physical evidence shows. Then the board concludes whether the use of force was justified.
They do not accept the officer’s word at face value. Officers may also face a criminal investigation and a Section 1983 lawsuit seeking to hold them personally liable for damages where the officer’s story is examined by the DA and then the plaintiff’s attorneys.
To believe that officers routinely execute persons in the street and then figure they can lie about it to get out of trouble, reflects a profound misunderstanding of these gauntlet an officer has to run thru every time he uses his gun on the streets.
Maybe you should watch a few episodes of Law and Order to see how it is actually done rather than fantasize that you have read all those “police reports.” LO
The defense's autopsy said nothing about his brains being blown out of his head like the witness says he saw?
Also, is it just me or does it seem strange to you that the camera was on the people watching what was supposed to be happening as opposed to WHAT was happening ?
Or at least not many and certainlyly not enough to conclude that officers always lie.
In most cases, detailed information on officer shootings is not contained in the police incident report but in the separate “use of force” report the officer is required to file. These reports are normally NOT available to the public. We have not seen one in the Brown case, have we?
What is made publicly available eventually is an abridged report –the officer’s name is redacted- by the Board of Police Commissioners or comparable agency that recounts what the officer said about the shooting, what other witnesses said, and what the physical evidence shows. Then the board concludes whether the use of force was justified.
They do not accept the officer’s word at face value. Officers may also face a criminal investigation and a Section 1983 lawsuit seeking to hold them personally liable for damages where the officer’s story is examined by the DA and then the plaintiff’s attorneys.
To believe that officers routinely execute persons in the street and then figure they can lie about it to get out of trouble, reflects a profound misunderstanding of these gauntlet an officer has to run thru every time he uses his gun on the streets.
Maybe you should watch a few episodes of Law and Order to see how it is actually done rather than fantasize that you have read all those “police reports.” LOL
They don't even mention his history of lying to the police or how the autopsy contradicts his statement about the teen being shot in the back!
Think those two things are just a wee bit important to his credibility? Not to the cop haters here.
-- Modified on 9/11/2014 3:02:08 PM
Only the pro felon's witnesses count in your mind? Interesting...
And the main star witness the HuffyPo mentions was convicted in 2011 for lying to the police. Yeah, that's gonna play well with the jury if this goes to court. lol
AND the autopsy performed by Michael Boden, who is widely known to be the best forensic pathologist in the business and working on behalf of the teen's family, showed all shots came from the front, once again completely discrediting Dorian Johnson's account and your assertion he was "running away.