Another question for the forum. The US Justice Department is investigating the shooting. Whether they find in favor of the officer or the deceased, should their decision be accepted 100%? I mean, they are the JUSTICE Department after all.

That's not even remotely true. It's possible to think a shooting isn't justified and that it occurred because of poor training, a lack of judgement, or just a bad decision.

Your examples have nothing to so with what I posted.

I don't think they always support the polices version as we've seen in cases on here. This one specifically is tough because the video is pretty much useless.

 

I will also say when it's all I have left I will believe the officers side. In order to not believe them you would have to believe officers are evil just out to kill people.

 

Not necessarily. I believe officers are human and make mistakes or have bad days just like the rest of us.

Your examples have nothing to so with what I posted.

 

 

Yes they do. You said in order to not believe the officers side you have to believe they are evil or just out to kill people.

 

I'm saying that it's possible to not believe the officers side without thinking they're evil or out to kill someone.

Another question for the forum. The US Justice Department is investigating the shooting. Whether they find in favor of the officer or the deceased, should their decision be accepted 100%? I mean, they are the JUSTICE Department after all.

 

I think so. The irony in that is that people say they don't trust the US Justice Department because of the current occupants but they have proven to make fair and just investigations without influence from one side or the other. Michael Brown and Ferguson comes to mind.

Not necessarily. I believe officers are human and make mistakes or have bad days just like the rest of us.

 

Exactly. Maybe I should, but I don't find officers any more or less trustworthy than someone in another profession.

Another question for the forum. The US Justice Department is investigating the shooting. Whether they find in favor of the officer or the deceased, should their decision be accepted 100%? I mean, they are the JUSTICE Department after all.

 

I think so.

Not the case in Charleston. Facts and video condemned the officer. Same thing in Albuquerque. Not always PP.

 

Very true. Not always. Always is the wrong word.

The lady that called this in mentioned " He might be on something". I read that in a different article. Maybe the helicopter pilot heard that?

 

I didn't realize they both fired at neatly the same time. One with a tazer and her with the gun.

If true, that speaks volumes.

Not necessarily. I believe officers are human and make mistakes or have bad days just like the rest of us.

If you go into it with the mind set that the police are lying unless video or audio evidence supports their claims then you obviously don't think much of them to start with.

And that's the other thing. How come the body cameras or audio never works in these situations? 3 weeks from now audio will be recovered and forensics experts will say the voice belonged to so and so and no one thinks that is fishy?

 

The same officer who fired the weapon, just happened to not turn on her dash-cam. That's the first mistake the officer made in this situation. If this was a non life threatening call, she had plenty of time to do so before engaging the man. And at what point do you become a suspect for having a vehicle parked in the streets?

The lady that called this in mentioned " He might be on something". I read that in a different article. Maybe the helicopter pilot heard that?

 

I didn't realize they both fired at nearly the same time. One with a tazer and her with the gun.

 

 

"He might be on something" and "That's one bad dude" Is how he was judged before this got totally out of hand.

 

Quite possibly the noise of the taser firing triggered the female officer to fire her weapon prematurely. If this was the first time she's had to draw, that could possibly happen.

If true, that speaks volumes.

Tells me both felt threatened at the exact same time. Wonder why?

So question for those who know, the articled stated she had cleared the driver side of the SUV already...

 

If that's the case, wouldn't she have at least some comfort level that there was no weapon within his reach if he did in fact reach into the vehicle?

The thing I noticed is they said his car was broke down but looking at the video this was no street it was a two lane hwy with a double yellow line and his vehicle was sitting in on coming traffics lane. If your car is breaking down on you who steers into oncoming traffics lane.