I thought I read when the girl in Boone County was killed, the officer had like 3 or 4 days to get report in. I googled it and came up with this article:

Police Chief Magazine - View Article

 

Pieces of it:

 

48 hour release window

With any law enforcement shooting comes intense media scrutiny. The best policy for all parties involved in a shooting is a 48-hour release policy. Neither the officer’s name nor the name of the individual shot should be released for 48 hours. This gives involved officers time to notify their families and arrange for temporary, secure accommodations if they fear threats or retaliation may follow. The 48-hour release policy also provides the department sufficient time to properly notify the family of the individual who was shot. A professional, timely media release issued by the head of the agency sends the message that this is a serious incident that will be handled with expertise and professionalism.

 

It will further benefit the law enforcement agency to send personalized copies of this release to stakeholders in the community to avoid dissemination of misinformation and to provide the community the names and phone numbers of contact persons for questions or concerns.

 

Officer Statements

 

Statements may be voluntarily given by the involved officer shortly after the incident or may be delayed on the advice of counsel. In those incidents in which officers do not voluntarily offer statements, they may be ordered by the department to give a statement. A compelled statement cannot be used in criminal proceedings, but may be used for internal review. It is important that the agency have ban agreed-upon policy with the union pertaining to the release of statements to avoid media and citizen scrutiny. This policy should require that the officer be subject to an interview within 72 hours of the shooting. This provides ample time for securing representation, sleep, rest, and reflection by the officer. The officer still retains the right to not provide a statement if the investigation focuses on potential criminal conduct.

 

Every effort should be made to conduct only one interview of the officer. It is important for the investigators to be fully prepared prior to conducting the interview. Providing one detailed statement to the agency’s shooting investigative team and the agency’s internal affairs division will avoid putting the officer through two questioning sessions. This will also eliminate the opportunity for a defense attorney to try to discredit the officer by finding slightly different answers to the same question asked in two different interviews.

 

Remember that under stress, officers may remember certain aspects of the incident and may not remember others. In general, the officers who returned to the environment can remember from about 50 percent to 70 percent of the significant details of the experience, while those trying to remember in a different place can recall only about 30 percent to 50 percent of the specifics.1 As a result, a physical walk-through at the incident scene might assist officers in their recollections prior to or during the interview.

 

How can agency leadership expect law enforcement personnel involved in one of the most critical incidents in their lives, who are operating under stress and fear, to remember what just happened in a rapidly evolving event? This is not a realistic expectation. What also must be realized is that civilian eyewitness testimony may be based on beliefs and values and may not be a fair replication of the actual facts. It is imperative to combine forensics with acquired recollections of involved and noninvolved individuals who are present at a critical incident.

 

Thanks LL. I knew I wasn't making up the 48 hour time frame, just didn't have anything to attatch to it.

That all makes sense to me but can we all agree that to the general public it seems fishy? One side of the story is immediately made public while the other side is delayed in release. As I stated I understand the delay. The general public may not always understand that or want to understand that. To the general public this delay in the release of their side of the story is to make sure everyone is on the same page once they go public with their story.

 

One side doesn't have rules, regulations, protocol and a potentially huge lawsuit lingering over it either.

 

Plus I still think her actions were extremely weird. I'd risk getting shot long before I'd let somone in my passenger seat just bleed out while I stream it live on Facebook.

He was not cited 52 times. I think it was 23.

 

And that's pretty common. I've seen plenty of white dudes in their 20's with 15-20 citations and that's just looking at Kentucky. Not counting warnings. Some folks just don't care and drive however they want to.

There's a lot in your post that could spur other conversations...big conversations. But....this is simple.. it's a taillight. I never know when I have a tailight out until someone tells me. No reason to get shot, even if I do get pulled over.

A bit of Hyperbole there isn't it...you know he wasn't shot because of a broken taillight and the guy in Baton Rouge wasn't shot for illegally selling pirated CDs.

 

Both shootings may be justified or neither may be, we will see. But neither was "Shot" for something that trivial.

The cop that shot him was Latino, so why all the hate on white people?

 

The hate isn't on any people. The hate is about the perception and disconnect between blacks and the police.

One would certainly think he'd know the routine but you know what they say about assumptions.

 

True.

I'd guess in my lifetime I have been pulled over about 20 times.

A bit of Hyperbole there isn't it...you know he wasn't shot because of a broken taillight and the guy in Baton Rouge wasn't shot for illegally selling pirated CDs.

 

Both shootings may be justified or neither may be, we will see. But neither was "Shot" for something that trivial.

 

It sounds better to say it that way. Helps further the agenda.

Agree and those pushing out lies at first should be held accountable somehow.

I hope it comes back on the Gov too for talking before knowing the actual truth or fact.

Those pushing out lies are the cause of this violence afterward.

 

Would we even have the problems in MO if the guy hadn't lied about Michael Brown?

 

I think so.

Check one box, I'm anxious to see how the rest plays out.

 

You and me both.

And that's pretty common. I've seen plenty of white dudes in their 20's with 15-20 citations and that's just looking at Kentucky. Not counting warnings. Some folks just don't care and drive however they want to.

 

@RandyParker

@RandyParker

He can't see over the wheel

I'd guess in my lifetime I have been pulled over about 20 times.

 

20 times??? Ok how many were legit, and how many because the cop was profiling?

 

 

I've been pulled over once in another country. And I've driven an awful lot of miles, being pulled over 20, 40, 53 times is crazy.

 

You either think your a Nascar driver or you look like OBL. Lol

That all makes sense to me but can we all agree that to the general public it seems fishy? One side of the story is immediately made public while the other side is delayed in release. As I stated I understand the delay. The general public may not always understand that or want to understand that. To the general public this delay in the release of their side of the story is to make sure everyone is on the same page once they go public with their story.

I agree it seems fishy to the general public. But I think you are giving the general public a little too much credit. They are are not that smart and do not understand the law. Look at all of us on here making assumptions on what the procedure is.

I agree it seems fishy to the general public. But I think you are giving the general public a little too much credit. They are are not that smart and do not understand the law. Look at all of us on here making assumptions on what the procedure is.

And we are the best of the best.