February 12, 200917 yr 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.
February 12, 200917 yr 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.
February 12, 200917 yr 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. 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. :thumb: 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.
February 13, 200917 yr Author 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/article/ALeqM5jqGBMRI69PDhzW14-LDvtS5H5s0AD96AB68G1
February 13, 200917 yr Author 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.
February 13, 200917 yr 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.
February 14, 200917 yr 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.
February 15, 200917 yr Author 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.
February 15, 200917 yr Remember the ham sandwich saying everyone. Hopefully the city has the resources to stand up to the NAACP.
February 16, 200917 yr 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.
February 16, 200917 yr Author Remember the ham sandwich saying everyone. Hopefully the city has the resources to stand up to the NAACP. The "ham sandwich" makes me think its 100% obvious that it was an accidental shooting.
February 16, 200917 yr 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. You don't think the grand jury was capable of seeing things your way as well? :confused:
February 16, 200917 yr You don't think the grand jury was capable of seeing things your way as well? :confused: I'm saying that it was irresponsible for the NAACP to be making such definitive statements within days of the shooting when there is no possible way they could have known all (or even much) of the evidence at that point.
February 16, 200917 yr I'm saying that it was irresponsible for the NAACP to be making such definitive statements within days of the shooting when there is no possible way they could have known all (or even much) of the evidence at that point. Ok got ya, my apologies.
February 16, 200917 yr Author 68 seconds elapsed from the time the kid's tag was called in to the time the office called in for help due to the shooting.
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.