Quote:
Originally Posted by Logan
|
The local police turned over the investigation, so it would be tampering if they interviewed anyone.
And you have this public statement from Holder that the "FBI will help local authorities undertake a “thorough, fair investigation.” Which different agencies can take different ways, and who knows what is being said behind the scenes. It makes sense to be deliberate even for the outside local agency, and if you're super-cautious, you consult the feds on everything, and maybe try to get them present at interviews, which takes some time. You can see how cynical people are about police investigations. No matter what happens, there will be people who think it's rigged. You can't do anything about them, but you can at least be as thorough and organized as possible to at least mitigate the risks that you're perceived as influencing the people you're interviewing.
Which is why the whole idea that the "police", as a broad unit are covering anything up here already is silly. There was at least a couple of police witnesses, and at least a couple of civilian witnesses. Most likely, in high stress situations, everyone will perceive things a little differently. Everyone can tell what they believe to be the truth and still tell different stories. But I know one thing for sure, if the officer committed a crime, or knows he exhibited poor judgment under stress bordering on criminal activity, he's not going down to his superiors and breaking that down in detail. He'll be in touch with his union rep and go home. The information that the "police" have right now will be from anything that was called in before and right after the incident. That's probably why they were able to say that there was some kind of physical conflict prior to the shooting. But that information only comes from that officer and any other officer at the scene. It could be made up, or exaggerated, or an incorrect account based on stress. There may never be a way to know for sure. But there will be plenty on "both sides" who have already made up their mind just based on the headline. (Putting "both sides" in quotes just because I hate that there's "sides" on something like this, but that's what it is. )
Just like there's only such much information "the police" can know at this point, we can't really attribute anything to the "black people" in this town either. They weren't collectively rioting. Just like whenever there's unrest, or a sports championship, there were some criminals who acted out. Some are just regular criminals, some are maybe people who see businesses as part of the governing structure of their lives, along with the police. It's irrelevant to what happened. Unless this is a violent city generally, in which case officers might be a little more stressed and a little more prone to poor judgment, but I have no idea if that's the case, and even if it is, it doesn't really say anything about fault on either side, it just provides realistic context.