Update: Latest on Star Running Back Death

Originally Posted by sportsfan41

Bad police work as far as the truck doesn't have to mean foul play. Means bad police work.

I never said that there was foul play. I merely questioned a few of the policing decisions involved with the case.

Originally Posted by theguru

1. I agree it was a bad error in judgment not to call he was in pursuit. However, we don't know how well officers in this town are trained.

2. I disagree. It is a fluid situation. Trust me, there is no one way to handle situations when a perp exits a vehicle after a pursuit. I have been in several pursuits and I don't know that any two have ever ended with the same perp actions.

3. Maybe. You also have to consider the possible close proximity to the glass.

4. I agree it normally takes longer to process a scene. Giving the car back makes no sense and certainly isn't something you would do if there was some type of foul play because it could be incriminating. This fact tells me they probably don't know what they are doing and were too stupid to ask for help.

The author of the article did an excellent job pointing out what I believe explains a lot of the abnormalities and that is the officer probably knew the deceased (and his vehicle) on sight so he abandoned several normal police procedures because he didn't feel threatened.

One other thing, they have a retired Chief (and now an expert consultant) telling you what should have been done. I am sure the Chief knows his stuff inside and out and is going to have the correct answer for everything. However, comparing his knowledge of police procedure to many small town coppers could be like some NFL coordinators telling a youth football coach what he is doing wrong. The only point I am trying to get across is that many small town law enforcement agencies leave a lot to be desired. It doesn't however mean they are out committing criminal acts.

1. Not wanting to get into an argument here because you are right that it is not known how well the officers are trained but do you not think it would be common practice for ANY officer to call for back up in a situation like this? I think if you took a poll of normal civilians and asked them to put themselves in the officer's shoes they would call for back up.

2. I will take your word for it as you have been there and done that. Just seems odd that an officer would allow a suspect to approach them after a high speed chase.

3. I'm going to preface this one with I may be wrong but I was taught that as long as the glass stays intact you can tell by the fissures left which direction and angle the bullet was traveling. Am I wrong here? If so how? (I am trying to use this as an educational experience as I plan on being a police officer when I turn 21.)

Originally Posted by JPP

The aspect that I see missing in these responses, is that the policeman very well may have known who he was chasing. From the story it seems that this was a somewhat frequent event, and maybe he did not want to make a big deal of this star runner running a redlight.

I covered that in my last response.

nku19,

1 and 2 are easily explained if the officer knew the deceased and recognized his car. From reading the article, knowing this guy had a zillion minor run ins with the law and he had a vanity plate of some type and he is a D1 star RB I would feel certain the officer knew who he had which explains not following what most would consider normal procedures.

On 3 I am by no means an expert. The point I am making is how close was the blast to the window and could there have been some other type of collateral damage from the blast because of the close proximity. And if so this may compromise the validity of the evidence and what you are able to determine from said evidence.

Has any more info been released to the public?

Originally Posted by theguru

nku19,

1 and 2 are easily explained if the officer knew the deceased and recognized his car. From reading the article, knowing this guy had a zillion minor run ins with the law and he had a vanity plate of some type and he is a D1 star RB I would feel certain the officer knew who he had which explains not following what most would consider normal procedures.

On 3 I am by no means an expert. The point I am making is how close was the blast to the window and could there have been some other type of collateral damage from the blast because of the close proximity. And if so this may compromise the validity of the evidence and what you are able to determine from said evidence.

Alright thanks for the input Guru. I'm getting ready to go into my Police In America class and was going to bring this topic up in discussion to see what my teacher and others have to say about it.

Was there no video from the cruiser cam?

Originally Posted by HHSDad

Was there no video from the cruiser cam?

I'm thinking with it being a small town there probably was not.

Originally Posted by theguru

Has any more info been released to the public?

I believe witnesses went before the grand jury today.

Findings will be made public on Thursday.

http://www.gulflive.com/news/mississ...350.xml&coll=5

LUCEDALE, Miss. (Map, News) - A star Mississippi high school football player accidentally shot himself with a shotgun after he was pulled over during a traffic stop, a grand jury ruled Thursday.

It concluded there was no forensic evidence, including DNA, that indicated the deputy who pulled Johnson over had fired the gun.

"The grand jury finds ... that Deputy Joe Sullivan was in his patrol car at the time of Billey Joe Johnson Jr.'s death," the ruling said.

The ruling said Johnson's hands tested positive for gunpowder residue and there were no other injuries on his body. The grand jury said there were no other people involved in the shooting.

LINK

Originally Posted by theguru

On 3 I am by no means an expert. The point I am making is how close was the blast to the window and could there have been some other type of collateral damage from the blast because of the close proximity. And if so this may compromise the validity of the evidence and what you are able to determine from said evidence.

How would collateral damage invalidate the evidence? As long as it hasn't been tampered with, the evidence could explain some things. An expert would understand the possibilities, and I'm sure they'd consider the collateral damage theory. I'd imagine they'd also be able to discern how it was broken, what broke it, and which angle it came from.

I'd agree that destroying the evidence was a mistake and could make people grow suspicious. The benefits of preserving the evidence are very clear. Are there any advantages to destroying it?

FWIW, on the few facts available to me, I'm more inclined to believe the officer's version of the story.

CC, the Grand Jury believed the officer's version too.

All I was saying about the evidence is we don't have enough information to make an informed decision. I do agree tampering or destroying evidence is a major no no.

Originally Posted by HHSDad

Was there no video from the cruiser cam?

I'd imagine there was not, or I think it'd be a much easier case. Cruiser Cams are something that I would like to see made mandatory on police cruisers, though.

Originally Posted by theguru

All I was saying about the evidence is we don't have enough information to make an informed decision. I do agree tampering or destroying evidence is a major no no.

All I was saying is that there was no reason to destroy the evidence, if you haven't done anything wrong. There's no reason to cover something up if there's nothing there, and destroying evidence just makes smoke where there may not be fire.

Here's an article similar to the one G posted but with a few more people quoted. Essentially, its not over.

http://www.google.com/hostednews/ap/...H5s0AD96AB68G1

You never know what's right and what's wrong in reports. With that said, here's what surprised me about this being ruled an accident. From an earlier quoted article:


As for the alleged self-inflicted gunshot, when the body was returned to the Johnsons, a state pathologist had cut out about one-third of his skull (the left, back side) and his tongue. Because the rest of him was intact, the assumption is the barrel was inside his mouth when it went off.

The kickback on a 12-gauge shotgun is considerable. Yet none of his teeth were broken and Deputy Sullivan said he saw Billey Joe still holding the barrel as he fell to the ground before it rested on his chest.

Originally Posted by Clyde

You never know what's right and what's wrong in reports. With that said, here's what surprised me about this being ruled an accident. From an earlier quoted article:


As for the alleged self-inflicted gunshot, when the body was returned to the Johnsons, a state pathologist had cut out about one-third of his skull (the left, back side) and his tongue. Because the rest of him was intact, the assumption is the barrel was inside his mouth when it went off.

The kickback on a 12-gauge shotgun is considerable. Yet none of his teeth were broken and Deputy Sullivan said he saw Billey Joe still holding the barrel as he fell to the ground before it rested on his chest.

If he put the butt of the gun on the ground I could see it not breaking his teeth.

It takes so little for a grand jury to procede with charges, that I have to lean with the police on this one. In such a high profile case, if they cant get a grand jury to say proceed, it would have to have the da's office involved in the coverup IMO.

The local branch of the NAACP says they have enough evidence to contradict the grand jury's decision and they are considering pursuing a civil case.

Remember the ham sandwich saying everyone.

Hopefully the city has the resources to stand up to the NAACP.

Originally Posted by Clyde

The local branch of the NAACP says they have enough evidence to contradict the grand jury's decision and they are considering pursuing a civil case.

Yes, they came to the conclusion within just a few days of the shooting that there was no possible way it could have been a suicide. I'm sure at that point it was a very thorough, unbiased investigation and that it remains as equally unbiased and objective at this point also.