Quote:
Originally Posted by Makarov
Also, posters who have been repeating that the physical evidence corroborates the officer's account (based on the brief article posted earlier) are, I think, vastly overstating the corrobative value of the physical evidence. It only corroborates the collateral elements of the officer's account. I haven't seen any physical evidence that corroborates the most contested and most important elements of the officer's account: what was said and done by the officer and Michael Brown in the moments before the fatal shooting (in particular, whether Brown had his hands up or was approaching the officer).
|
I think you need to look at all the evidence as a whole not just a single element to draw your conclusion. Further, the corroborative evidence can also be used to discredit or at least bring up questions with eyewitness testimony.
I am not sure what you are looking for is available in a nice clear, concise one line conclusion. The ME gave a conclusion. Eye witnesses appeared to have made observations that substantiate that - that MB was not shot in the back and may have been running or charging.
Where does the information come from that Wilson was allowed to see the evidence before providing a statement? It's certainly not unusual for an accused to not provide a statement and upon receiving disclosure, concoct a story, but in the case, he wasn't charged yet.
Also, police aren't regular Joe Shmoes. There are sections in the Criminal Code dedicated to the use of force by Law Enforcement.
There also appears to be this myth of police protecting each other. I am sure, like other professions, there is nothing good cops hate more than another cop who tarnishes the images of those that work hard everyday.