Cincinnati campus officer shoots and kills unarmed black male

[xxlt]

(07-30-2015, 02:58 PM)fredtoast Wrote: One cops lies you indict the cop.  All the cops lie and you have to start looking at the entire force.  you can no longer say it was just one rogue cop when the others lie to protect him.

I understand and there may be a problem with the entire force. There may be a problem with these two guys who allegedly lied to back up the shooter. I really haven't looked at the shooter statement or the witness statements. I know the video seems to show pretty conclusively the shooter did not follow protocol, and I commend the prosecutor for more or less saying that. I am just saying - and as an attorney I am sure you know this - that everything that happened and every thing said subsequently by witnesses has to be considered in whole before making blanket statements that "all cops are killers" or "liars" or even that the witnesses are liars. Let the PD and the prosecutor and as appropriate a jury sort through everything.

Such a sorting may reveal the other two cops were model officers who fell into the trap of believing what the shooter told them and shaping their statements accordingly and perhaps not consciously. That kind of stuff can happen, especially in such an emotionally charged situation. Or, maybe it will reveal that they knew damn good and well it was a bad shooting and they were trying to protect their buddy. While I see that as wrong, I also understand it is sort of a human thing and again a trap many fall into. It is sort of like Clinton denying his affair with Lewinsky. Some would even commend the officers for lying to protect their fellow officer - again I would not do that but some (maybe even some here) would. They will point to the alleged drunk driving, the non-compliance, the prior record of the victim et al and say that while the cop messed up we all make mistakes and in the scheme of things them lying for him when he shot a "bad guy" is justified. I don't agree with that position, but some will take it.

The case looks pretty (no pun intended) black and white but with regard to the witness statements there are perhaps some shades of gray if one looks closely at what witnesses heard on the radio, what they saw on the scene when they arrived, and what they were told. Perhaps they inferred things in their statements and filled in "facts" they believed but could not have known. Again, humans tend to do that - we tend to fill in the gaps to make sense of what we have seen and heard. It isn't always conscious and isn't always with intent to deceive.