quote:
Yep. His account sounds exactly like the policeman's friend's rendition during the radio interview. Again, the public is being done a horrible disservice by police handling of information here. Preliminary autopsy results which would include conclusory ballistic direction and trajectories should have been released. Preliminary second autopsy (if conducted) results should be released as well. And the Chief of Police needs to get his act in gear. The press is quoting him as saying the officer did not associate Brown with the robbery prior to the shooting. I don't think that is what the Chief intended to communicate. I think he meant the officer's initial contact with Brown was independent of the robbery. I don't think he intended to speak to additional awareness that may have occurred during the encounter after initial contact. But the PR has been so catastrophically inept here that who knows WTF the guy actually knows or meant.

Exactly, NC. I sometimes think that the Authorities are indulging in their *authority*, I.e., taking control of *evidence*...and in effect, they see themselves as taking control of the reaction to the evidence. Which is their job; such being control of the public.

But it's no different than a suspect/witness who refuses to cooperate, until...they can get their story concocted to fit their desired outcome. CYA.

In some ways, this whole scenario may be a good thing. Hopefully, in the future, arrogant Authorities who want to prolong and indulge in self-important, 15-minutes-of-fame on National media, will realize that such will be a costly and selfish indulgence.

When this stuff happens...there are witnesses. And there will be (post autopsy) corroborating evidence which backs up the true version. And they should put the known facts out there asap. Either policy is implemented to assure that they do (no more drawn out face-time on National tv) to counter opportunistic flamers or rogue passions...or the place burns.