I already did that.

My apologies Bench. I misread your post. I thought maybe you had some facts that we had yet to hear here.

I'll have to go back and re-read it, but thought there was something along these lines...

 

1.) He began backpedaling, so not to get caught between her car and his cruiser. (This would put him further down the street, likely past his vehicle.)

 

2.) She turned left. (I think most people have heard this, and are referencing when she turned left out of the driveway...but, what if she turned left after she passed his cruiser?)

 

So, if the officer walked (backwards) past his cruiser, and even was in the right hand lane...it leaves the possibility that she could have still turned towards him and not hit his cruiser. Even if he thought he was in a somewhat "safe" position, a car can lurch and cover a short (3-5 feet?) distance relatively quickly. But, this is pure and total speculation.

I'll have to go back and re-read it, but thought there was something along these lines...

 

1.) He began backpedaling, so not to get caught between her car and his cruiser. (This would put him further down the street, likely past his vehicle.)

 

2.) She turned left. (I think most people have heard this, and are referencing when she turned left out of the driveway...but, what if she turned left after she passed his cruiser?)

 

So, if the officer walked (backwards) past his cruiser, and even was in the right hand lane...it leaves the possibility that she could have still turned towards him and not hit his cruiser. Even if he thought he was in a somewhat "safe" position, a car can lurch and cover a short (3-5 feet?) distance relatively quickly. But, this is pure and total speculation.

 

Good points.

 

The proof should be in the physical evidence on the car, the officers clothes, and the injuries the officer sustained however minor. In other words, there will be scuffs/dents/etc. on the car (and possibly his uniform) showing where/how the officer entered the hood of the vehicle. It is basic accident reconstruction.

Kentucky State Police have denied Boone County Sheriff Michael Helmig's request to investigate the fatal shooting of a 19-year-old woman last Saturday by a deputy.

 

State police cited policy and current protocol.

 

"Helmig originally launched his own investigation reasoning the Boone County Sheriff's Office has the resources to conduct a full and impartial investigation no matter who is involved," the sheriff's office said Thursday.

 

"Since that decision there have been questions raised concerning of the appearance of impropriety. Rethinking his position, Sheriff Helmig opted to call in an outside agency to dispel any thoughts of cover up or favoritism and the obvious choice was the Kentucky State Police."

 

Despite the decision of state police, Commissioner Rodney Brewer did offer to "provide any support for [the] investigation including but not limited to use of our LEICA forensic scanner, expediting lab requests and any other technical or investigative assistance [they] need."

 

Ky. State Police deny request to investigate deputy shooting - Cincinnati News, FOX19-WXIX TV

^Any idea as to why they would deny the request?

^Any idea as to why they would deny the request?

 

It has me scratching my head. I think KSP needs to be specific about the policy and current protocol. Otherwise I believe most perception will be negative.

i took it as him hopping onto the hood from the front fender side of her car near her window,because he states he was afraid of being pinned between her car and his cruiser.

Off the top of my head KSP could be saying you either call us from the start or not at all. In other words, often in investigations (doesn't even have to be the police) people start investigating and then realize (often with the best of intentions) that someone different and/or more experienced is needed and that is a very difficult situation for most investigators/agencies to be thrown into.

Additionally, I think the Sheriff is in a big jam now. Either they take the investigation back (after saying someone from the outside was best), or they give it to Florence (too many unspoken issues between the two departments), or they go with the FBI (ouch).

 

Maybe Covington, Louisville, or Lexington could do it. I would probably choose Louisville PD out of that bunch for several reasons. The other departments are fine departments but I would go with Louisville.

Off the top of my head KSP could be saying you either call us from the start or not at all. In other words, often in investigations (doesn't even have to be the police) people start investigating and then realize (often with the best of intentions) that someone different and/or more experienced is needed and that is a very difficult situation for most investigators/agencies to be thrown into.

 

I'm assuming it's a matter of time and resources that have caused them to ask for outside help?

I'm assuming it's a matter of time and resources that have caused them to ask for outside help?

 

From WCPO.com:

 

The Boone County Sheriff said Thursday he has asked the Kentucky State Police to investigate the shooting.

 

Sheriff Michael A. Helmig said he made the request "to dispel any thoughts of cover up or favoritism" in his own investigation.

It has me scratching my head. I think KSP needs to be specific about the policy and current protocol. Otherwise I believe most perception will be negative.

 

Yea that press release doesn't help either agency and like you said will leave a lot of people scratching their heads.

Sheriff waited too long, KSP will help but not lead.

Additionally, I think the Sheriff is in a big jam now. Either they take the investigation back (after saying someone from the outside was best), or they give it to Florence (too many unspoken issues between the two departments), or they go with the FBI (ouch).

 

Maybe Covington, Louisville, or Lexington could do it. I would probably choose Louisville PD out of that bunch for several reasons. The other departments are fine departments but I would go with Louisville.

 

I agree with you and I think for likely some of the same reasons.

Someone earlier said b/c the girl in the car didn't have a story matching the video everything she said was unreliable. We saying the same thing about the officer's story? 3 shots is not correct. Does that mean some of the rest of his story could be incorrect b/c of the stress of the situation?