Alvarez said, “all of the evidence points to the fact” that Johnson had a gun when he was shot, including accounts from other people in the car with him the night he was killed.

Also I don't see her statement that he posed no threat. Is that your interpretation?

Alvarez said, “all of the evidence points to the fact” that Johnson had a gun when he was shot, including accounts from other people in the car with him the night he was killed.

 

The attorney says the witness in the car was "coereced."

"officers saw that Johnson was carrying a gun and ordered him to drop the weapon, but he instead ran away while holding the gun, Alvarez said. He encountered other officers and, prosecutors say, there was a physical struggle between Johnson and an officer who wound up knocked to the ground while Johnson ran away."

 

And..

 

"Alvarez said that the dashboard video of Ronald Johnson’s shooting was shown to the FBI, who said they were not going to participate in the investigation."

 

Article also mentions Tennessee vs Garner which seems like it would apply here.

 

The attorney says the witness in the car was "coereced."

 

Any proof or are they just throwing things out and hoping they stick?

Also I don't see her statement that he posed no threat. Is that your interpretation?

 

She said he COULD pose a threat because of the crowd in the park he was heading towards. Attorney says pictures and video show no one was in the park since it was so late at night.

Any proof or are they just throwing things out and hoping they stick?

 

The only proof would be if they had it taped , which they would not, and the kid saying he was coerced. Could he ? Sure. We know it happens. My guess is this is all building up towards a civil suit.

"officers saw that Johnson was carrying a gun and ordered him to drop the weapon, but he instead ran away while holding the gun, Alvarez said. He encountered other officers and, prosecutors say, there was a physical struggle between Johnson and an officer who wound up knocked to the ground while Johnson ran away."

 

And..

 

"Alvarez said that the dashboard video of Ronald Johnson’s shooting was shown to the FBI, who said they were not going to participate in the investigation."

 

Article also mentions Tennessee vs Garner which seems like it would apply here.

 

My next case I try will be my first so.....

 

It MAY apply but it would seem to require that there be people potentially in danger. Attorney says video shows no one was in the park that she referenced. Garner would see to require that there be a likelihood of potential danger.

 

The big question in my mind is there being an actual gun or not.

 

She said he COULD pose a threat because of the crowd in the park he was heading towards. Attorney says pictures and video show no one was in the park since it was so late at night.

 

But she didn't exactly say that he posed no threat to the Officers?

 

Your post said she said that...

 

My next case I try will be my first so.....

 

It MAY apply but it would seem to require that there be people potentially in danger. Attorney says video shows no one was in the park that she referenced. Garner would see to require that there be a likelihood of potential danger.

 

The big question in my mind is there being an actual gun or not.

 

How are the police supposed to know where people are or aren't? If shots have been fired in the area, he had a weapon, has struggled with officers knocking one down...now he's running away towards a park. The police don't know if someone is there or not, but it's possible someone is, right?

But she didn't exactly say that he posed no threat to the Officers?

 

Your post said she said that...

 

He posed no threat as he was running away.

How are the police supposed to know where people are or aren't? If shots have been fired in the area, he had a weapon, has struggled with officers knocking one down...now he's running away towards a park. The police don't know if someone is there or not, but it's possible someone is, right?

 

Maybe isn't enough as I read summaries of Tennessee vs Garner.

 

 

From Wiki:

 

Tennessee v. Garner, 471 U.S. 1 (1985)[1], was a case in which the Supreme Court of the United States held that, under the Fourth Amendment, when a law enforcement officer is pursuing a fleeing suspect, he or she may not use deadly force to prevent escape unless "the officer has probable cause to believe that the suspect poses a significant threat of death or serious physical injury to the officer or others."

 

 

If the police did not KNOW there were people in the park then they would seen to have not had probable cause to believe there was the chance of death or injury.

 

What I do not know is other cases where there was a gun possessed by the fleeing suspect. Need to look more.

He posed no threat as he was running away.

 

I understand that is your opinion. It wasn't her statement though, as far as I read.

Chicago has an independent review board (forget the name of it) that is used to review cases like this one and the one that we will probably hear about this week. They got the dashcam video days after the incident and did nothing for a year.

 

The head of that board resigned this evening effective immediately.

 

DOJ is doing an investigation.

 

Attorney for victim says it's a "joke" that the state's attorney relied on the investigative board that just had the resignation due to issues involving the "other" shooting.

 

No charges against Chicago officer who shot Ronald Johnson - CNN.com

I understand that is your opinion. It wasn't her statement though, as far as I read.

 

You are correct.