Police Attack with Taser Sleeping Man in His Own Home

[brianeyci]

Ah yes, the dumbfuck who thinks that people are too "hardcore" when angry about civil rights abuses. And a holier than thou haughty attitude. I can call you as many names as I want, what are you going to do about it huh?

You accused others of rushing to judgment and "baseless guessing" in your first posts you dishonest dickass. This isn't a case of you saying others can believe what they want and you believe something else is possible: you went straight out with all guns that other people's position was wrong, and now you're backpedaling to furiously reclaim your shattered ego.

Too bad: this isn't a court of law and reserving judgment when there are no consequences for being wrong is for cowards. People are so concerned about being proven wrong when some factoid comes out later that they don't want to conclude anything at all to start with.

[Kamakazie Sith]

Ah yes, the dumbfuck who thinks that people are too "hardcore" when angry about civil rights abuses. And a holier than thou haughty attitude. I can call you as many names as I want, what are you going to do about it huh?

LMAO comedy fucking gold.

Calm the fuck down, and actually read my posts. I was making fun of your insults directed at me, and only at that. I'm glad you're passionate about civil rights, but I wasn't referring to that. For some reason it makes me laugh when you call me a name. It's like you're trying to be one of the guys.

You accused others of rushing to judgment and "baseless guessing" in your first posts you dishonest dickass. This isn't a case of you saying others can believe what they want and you believe something else is possible: you went straight out with all guns that other people's position was wrong, and now you're backpedaling to furiously reclaim your shattered ego.

Guessing about police procedure was baseless. It is a matter of policy that a department will not release any information on an ongoing investigation till it is complete. People took this silence to mean something entirely different.

Actually, I did say others can believe what they want. It's my opinion that they are rushing to judgment though. What part of that do you not understand?

Where did I say anyone was wrong? People were wrong about matters regarding police policy, but as for taking Mr. Hick's side I never said they were wrong. That's contradictory to my position which is neutral.

Too bad: this isn't a court of law and reserving judgment when there are no consequences for being wrong is for cowards. People are so concerned about being proven wrong when some factoid comes out later that they don't want to conclude anything at all to start with.

LMAO. I suppose you're the authority on what makes a person a coward or not? Yes, clearly waiting for more information before taking a stance on a dynamic subject is for pussies. We should show those weaklings what's up, huh? Go kick their ass, Brian.

[brianeyci]

It's like you're trying to be one of the guys.

It's like you're trying to be "one of the guys" in with your police buddies, and you're not even in yet. Tell me when you actually get in, and if you laugh at the guy on the street for being "too quick to judge."

Your laughter is more revealing than you think. You think it's so unbelievable that something bad's happened, so you laugh it off as a way to deal with it. The ultimate lack of maturity. You remind me of my snot nosed brother who laughs at anything with even a remote hint of seriousness to it.

We should show those weaklings what's up, huh? Go kick their ass, Brian.

Nice try dumbass, but I was talking about intellectual cowardice. You're afraid to be proven wrong later, so you take the neutral stance. Only a knuckledragger thinks that cowardice is all about fists and kicking ass, nice projection there buddy.

[Kamakazie Sith]

It's like you're trying to be one of the guys.

It's like you're trying to be "one of the guys" in with your police buddies, and you're not even in yet. Tell me when you actually get in, and if you laugh at the guy on the street for being "too quick to judge."

Holding a neutral stance on a dynamic situation is "being one of the guys" when it comes to being a police officer? Hey, I say we've come a long way with our reputation. Usually, the public perception of being one of the guys is taking the side of your buddies in blue. (Note - Not the neutral position)

Also, you told me to tell you when I was in. Well, I've been in. I don't know where you got your little impression from. You seem to be fabricating a lot of assumptions about me.

Your laughter is more revealing than you think. You think it's so unbelievable that something bad's happened, so you laugh it off as a way to deal with it. The ultimate lack of maturity. You remind me of my snot nosed brother who laughs at anything with even a remote hint of seriousness to it.

Yes, no doubt you're an expert on human psychology. I never said it was unbelievable either. In fact, I specifically said it was very possible. Are you sure you don't have me confused with an imaginary poster in this thread?

Nice try dumbass, but I was talking about intellectual cowardice. You're afraid to be proven wrong later, so you take the neutral stance. Only a knuckledragger thinks that cowardice is all about fists and kicking ass, nice projection there buddy.

Who says I was talking about physical violence? You can get your ass kicked on a verbal level. If you don't believe me just look up the number of times posters here have said someone got their ass kicked in a debate.

You think you know me, but you don't. Stop pretending.

As for intellectual cowardice, this isn't an agnostic debate. We're talking about something that is a dynamic situation, and has a reasonable level of possibility either way. God does not.

[brianeyci]

Holding a neutral stance on a dynamic situation is "being one of the guys" when it comes to being a police officer? Hey, I say we've come a long way with our reputation. Usually, the public perception of being one of the guys is taking the side of your buddies in blue. (Note - Not the neutral position)

Also, you told me to tell you when I was in. Well, I've been in. I don't know where you got your little impression from. You seem to be fabricating a lot of assumptions about me.

It's neutral from some viewpoints, but from others it looks like you're defending them. As for "in" I don't know a shit about your history, and I only saw Supes "wannabe supercop" comment. If that's wrong it doesn't change my rebuttal a whit: that criticizing the government at every turn is actually healthy, which you do not seem to agree with. From when you immediately decided to debate me being "pissed off" rather than the issue. Well guess what, I can be pissed if I want, asshole.

Yes, no doubt you're an expert on human psychology. I never said it was unbelievable either. In fact, I specifically said it was very possible. Are you sure you don't have me confused with an imaginary poster in this thread?

Then where do you get off on telling other people they're rushing to judgment? You're trying to have your cake and eat it too, say it's possible but at the same time criticize people for it. Do you even know what the fuck rushing to judgment means?

Who says I was talking about physical violence? You can get your ass kicked on a verbal level. If you don't believe me just look up the number of times posters here have said someone got their ass kicked in a debate.

You think you know me, but you don't. Stop pretending.

So there's something wrong with me going out and "kicking ass" with words?

How ironic coming from someone who says I'm emotionally unstable for being "pissed off." You took the gloves off first pal.

As for intellectual cowardice, this isn't an agnostic debate. We're talking about something that is a dynamic situation, and has a reasonable level of possibility either way. God does not.

Golden mean bullshit, you really are pulling out all the stops aren't you? There is no reasonable level of possibility either way. The weight of evidence is on one side and the burden of proof for the government being clean is greater so people are rational to conclude Hicks's version of events. How many times do I have to mention this before it gets through your thick skull?

[Thanas]

And this influences the statement that they've got nothing...how exactly?

The fact that it's SOP means that they don't necessarily have nothing. The fact that the DA agreed it was justified, and then put his own neck on the line is cause, for me, to reserve my judgment.

So in other words...they have nothing that is open to the public. Kinda like the pixie in the sky...there is no evidence for it either, but it must be there...

As I said earlier, until they show something to the public...they and you by extension have nothing.

There is no report on this that is open to the public. Surely if they were innocent they would have nothing to fear from opening it to the public.

Are you saying they didn't complete a report? Where did you get this information? It's not in the article?

You know what, I am fucking tired of you constantly failing to read. First the whole "civilized" BS becaue you missed a word, and now you manage to miss threee words. Note how I specifically said "open to the public".

No, I didn't say that. I said that the DA's decision, and Mr. Hicks account holds the same weight. Now do you have evidence to support your accusation that the DA is a lying piece of shit? I mean besides the whole generalization fallacy...

Nice try. But the two accounts have to be of the same value to consider them of equal importance. What we have got from Mr. Hicks is a conclusive, logical layout of the events happening. What we have got from the DA is nothing but a single statement, a statement that does not explain anything. So no, your "they hold the same weight" spiel does not apply in the first place.

Right, and then he sends it off to the FBI because deep down he's feeling guilty and wants to spend time in a federal prison.

Is he obligated to do so?

Ah.. And what time period are we going off of? I've looked up civilized countries, and I can't find anything. Maybe you should have said first world instead.

Those countries in africa certainly do not fit that criteria and honestly I am wondering if that wasn't clear by the context of the sentence.

You didn't specify first world. You said civilized. I guess I don't know what that means in your context. Anyway, according to some sources I've found this is a list of first world countries.

First World

What does this have to do with anything regarding to the question at hand. Besides, first world and civilized are rather interchangeable in a discussion anyway.

But, since you seem to be stuck up on semantics, let me clarify:

Compared to the police forces of western european countries, american police forces in general have a reputation of having more rascist, violent thugs than said european police forces. One might even say that some PDs have a history of inbred rascism and incompetence.

There. Happy now? Can we get back to the argument at hand?

I sent the DA a request yesterday. It'll be interesting to see how long this takes...

How long is the standard waiting period?

[Fingolfin_Noldor]

Wait What? Are you practically suggesting that if no one asked, it would actually be fine to bury this under the rug?!?! So "Don't ask Don't tell"? You call this accountability!?!?!

Umm, this is common practice among almost every DA in the country unless there is a request for information. You can't assign them fault just because you have a particular interest in this case.

Again, other than your very apparent dislike for the media, there is nothing that you have suggested that proves the Police have done no wrong. All you have done is consistently insinuate that Mr Hicks lied.

I have, but you dont' accept it. You look at the conclusion of the DA as completely worthless. I'm not saying it's the end all be all, but I am saying it causes me to take pause. If that conclusion would not have been there then I'd be on your side.

And you have yet to address why the damn DA refuses to refute the accusations. Oh sure, he is under no obligation, but hey, we aren't under any obligation to believe that the DA is even remotely telling the truth, or not stonewalling.

Was he asked by the media to give a more detailed explanation. It looks like they've just done a follow up, and nothing more.

So in other words, there is no accountability. It merely exists only if people care about it, while idiots get away scot free if no one notices. Well done. Fine way to bury abuses.

[Darth Wong]

Way back on the first page, K posted this:

Been tasered.

Didn't care for it.

Not fun (from my end of the taser, anyway).

Worse than a 110 or 220 household-current hit, in the sense of being more disabling for much longer.

Funny side note - last week had to go and attend the Motion Picture Industry Safety Passport "G" class, which among other things is training on how to avoid shocks, falls, crush-injuries, etc...and the instructor (cataloging his fused vetebrae, perforated heart-muscle, etc, etc, etc) described having been on the receiving end of virtually every injury he was teaching us, to avoid.

Nothing like the voice of experience.

Is it just me, or does anyone else question why one should listen to accident-avoidance advice from someone who clearly sucks at avoiding accidents?

[Redleader34]

One justfication to that question, Mr. Wong, was that "If you hear it from a person who was hit by/attacked by/failed in life somehow, you would not want to go through it. Another justfication is that you could see what he did wrong, and not follow that model.

[Oni Koneko Damien]

No, that isn't my argument at all. Did you even read the posts that lead up to that remark?

Alright, fair point. Your argument consists of 1) "Something tells you..." and 2) "The DA says so, don't question him! Waah waaaah!"

Though I did state that later, I'll admit I was inconsistent about it throughout the post.

Obviously, you did not. Something tells me it wouldn't be as simple as them releasing a more detailed statement to convince the people here that they were justified.

Oh wow, this would be comedy gold if it weren't so damn sad.

"My argument has nothing to do with 'something tells me...'!"

*Three seconds later*

"Something tells me..."

What, you fucking dipshit? What tells you? Where's your evidence? Do you have *anything* aside from an argument from ignorance? You do realize that the standards of evidence require far more than 'something tells me...' right?

I did imply that, and I apologize. My position is actually "we don't have all the facts"

Wow, aren't you the fence-sitting little retard? The only reason we don't have any facts is because the DA *and* the police refuse to give their side of the story. Here's an interesting little factoid for you: When a *government organization* refuses to give out any evidence dispelling the notion of corruption and wrongdoing on their part when a citizen brings force a reasonable accusation of it, it makes them look guiltier by default.

In other words government organizations, by their very nature, are held to much higher standards in terms of justifying themselves.

No evidence

<KS logic>
Whoa whoa whoa, rushing to judgment now, aren't you? We don't have all the facts yet, so we can't know for *sure* that there's no evidence, right?

The DA never actually said there was no evidence behind Mr. Hicks' claims, did he? What's wrong, don't you trust the DA? He's putting his neck on the line!
</KS logic>

Look fuckwit, the police are in a position of great power here. To perform their jobs, their members have certain priveledges that normal citizens don't (carrying concealed firearms, use of force, etc.). Because of this, they need to be held to a much higher standard of transparency to ensure that this power isn't being abused.

This means that when someone claims that power is abused, especially in a fashion that catches the attention of a popular, state-wide media source, they *are* obligated to provide at the very least their side of the story, in a fashion that will reach all concerned parties. Y'know, something like a, say, PRESS RELEASE TO THE SAME PAPER THAT REPORTED THE FIRST STORY would fit the bill perfectly.

I'd be willing to go on previous accusations of racism from the officers involved, but just because the department has a prior history doesn't mean that's what happened.

But it does mean 1) there's more reason to believe it *is* what happened, and 2) they have all the more reason to clear their own name in this case.

On their own end? Could you clarify who the concerned parties are on their own end?

In this case, the readers of the newspaper in question. The story is obviously popular enough and apparently compelling enough to grab the attention of a statewide newspaper. The people living within the jurisdiction of this department place their safety, and sometimes their lives, in the ability of this department to keep order and remain relatively free of corruption.

When a newspaper this popular has a story accusing them of corruption, they are obligated to demonstrate that accusation as false. That means doing more than going "Nuh-uh!"

Yes, the DA is supposed to review the information, and then decide if force was justified. He then sent the information to the FBI. Those facts have caused me to reserve my judgment.

The president is supposed to review the information about the threat-capability of Iraq, and then decide if force was justified. He sent the information to war. Those facts have caused me to reserve my judgment.

Catching the parallels here, moron? Government agencies are required to be more transparent, to give ACTUAL REASONS FOR THEIR DECISIONS if they are to remain in the trust of the public they allegedly serve.

Something tells you...

You're confused by the statement. See above.

Great, then you'll be happy to elaborate on what this great and mysterious 'something' is, right? The voice of god? Your corn flakes?

So far everything you've said revolves around "You shouldn't question the DA!" and "Well, something tells me..."

Actually, I've never said that. I did say that the decision of the DA does cause me to withhold my judgment.

Then your hold argument revolves around "Well, something tells me..." and "You shouldn't question the DA!"

How fucking stupid are you? You are attacking people who are... questioning the DA, and then you have the gall to claim that you aren't arguing against questioning the DA?

Why? Why shouldn't we question it? And what tells you it isn't 'that simple'.

Again, you're confused.

Hooray! Repeat it enough times without explaining anything and it might just be accepted as truth!

...oh wait, we're not religious fucktards, that kind of dishonest bullshit doesn't fly here.

Here's an even better question: What actually happened? If Mr. Hicks is lying, why? What does he stand to gain and how did the events really unfold?

Money. Bad publicity for the police. Like racism in the police department is a past occurence so is people suing the police for justified actions. I guess what's good for the goose is good for the gander huh? If you can conclude this a matter of racism based off the past history of an entire department then surely it's reasonable for me to reserve my judgment, and not make a conclusion, based off the past actions of other offenders.

Yeah, because it's not at all like the police have ever come forward, explaining their side of the story and SHOWING EVIDENCE that past, false claims abuse of power were, in fact, false, no?

Sorry asshole, your argument doesn't hold water on the basis of it being fucking dishonest.

[Darth Wong]

One justfication to that question, Mr. Wong, was that "If you hear it from a person who was hit by/attacked by/failed in life somehow, you would not want to go through it. Another justfication is that you could see what he did wrong, and not follow that model.

Let me ask you this: would you accept driving advice from someone who bragged that he'd had 34 accidents in the last 10 years?

[Death from the Sea]

One justfication to that question, Mr. Wong, was that "If you hear it from a person who was hit by/attacked by/failed in life somehow, you would not want to go through it. Another justfication is that you could see what he did wrong, and not follow that model.

Let me ask you this: would you accept driving advice from someone who bragged that he'd had 34 accidents in the last 10 years?

you could see what they were doing or how they were driving and use that as an example of what not to do....

as for the original topic of the thread... wow, I can't even begin to see how this is justified from any point of view, unless alot of info has been left out. These two should loose their jobs.

[Darth Wong]

North Braddock PA has a population of around 6000 people, according to a quickie search I just did. In other words, it's a dipshit small town. And I don't know about you guys, but in my experience, small-town cops are nothing more than thugs with badges.

I've had only good experiences with Toronto city cops, but the small-town cops in southwestern Ontario were ... well, you could tell that they were the idiot bullies in high-school, and when they graduated they had to find a job that would let them continue pushing people around. They probably tasered him the second time because he was "uppity".

[Kamakazie Sith]

It's neutral from some viewpoints, but from others it looks like you're defending them. As for "in" I don't know a shit about your history, and I only saw Supes "wannabe supercop" comment. If that's wrong it doesn't change my rebuttal a whit: that criticizing the government at every turn is actually healthy, which you do not seem to agree with. From when you immediately decided to debate me being "pissed off" rather than the issue. Well guess what, I can be pissed if I want, asshole.

No, I would never defend such actions. Hopefully, this will be the last time I repeat that.

Then where do you get off on telling other people they're rushing to judgment? You're trying to have your cake and eat it too, say it's possible but at the same time criticize people for it. Do you even know what the fuck rushing to judgment means?

Just because something is possible doesn't mean you can't rush to judgment on it. Also, I apologize for making it sound like those who rushed to judgment are doing something terrible. That's not the case at all.

So there's something wrong with me going out and "kicking ass" with words?

LMAO. Brian. I'm messing with you. There's nothing wrong with that. Go, please. Kick ass.

Golden mean bullshit, you really are pulling out all the stops aren't you? There is no reasonable level of possibility either way. The weight of evidence is on one side and the burden of proof for the government being clean is greater so people are rational to conclude Hicks's version of events. How many times do I have to mention this before it gets through your thick skull?

Again, show me where the police refused a request for the report.

[Kamakazie Sith]

So in other words...they have nothing that is open to the public. Kinda like the pixie in the sky...there is no evidence for it either, but it must be there...

It is open to the public. It's just not posted on every window for all to see. You must request police reports they aren't given to you.

As I said earlier, until they show something to the public...they and you by extension have nothing.

Besides the ruling of the DA. No matter how you want to dismiss it that does mean something.

You know what, I am fucking tired of you constantly failing to read. First the whole "civilized" BS becaue you missed a word, and now you manage to miss threee words. Note how I specifically said "open to the public".

If there's a police report then it's open to the public. I've didn't miss three words here. You're failing to comprehend an entire concept. Show me where the police refused a request for the report, and I'll concede.

Nice try. But the two accounts have to be of the same value to consider them of equal importance. What we have got from Mr. Hicks is a conclusive, logical layout of the events happening. What we have got from the DA is nothing but a single statement, a statement that does not explain anything. So no, your "they hold the same weight" spiel does not apply in the first place.

What you have from the DA is a statement given to the media. Quite different from an outright refusal.

Is he obligated to do so?

He could be.

Ah.. And what time period are we going off of? I've looked up civilized countries, and I can't find anything. Maybe you should have said first world instead.

How long is the standard waiting period?

I don't know for their size of department, or what their activity level is.

[Kamakazie Sith]

Alright, fair point. Your argument consists of 1) "Something tells you..." and 2) "The DA says so, don't question him! Waah waaaah!"

OMG this is like speaking to a child. Listen, moron. The "something tells me" remark is my opinion about certain members in this thread. It has absolutely zero to do with the argument itself. Do you understand, yet?

Oh wow, this would be comedy gold if it weren't so damn sad.

"My argument has nothing to do with 'something tells me...'!"

*Three seconds later*

"Something tells me..."

Again, that's my opinion about certain members in this thread regarding the hypothetical question of the police releasing the report. Again, it has nothing to do with the argument at all. ZERO.

Wow, aren't you the fence-sitting little retard? The only reason we don't have any facts is because the DA *and* the police refuse to give their side of the story. Here's an interesting little factoid for you: When a *government organization* refuses to give out any evidence dispelling the notion of corruption and wrongdoing on their part when a citizen brings force a reasonable accusation of it, it makes them look guiltier by default.

Refused? Can you point out where they refused to provide the report?

In other words government organizations, by their very nature, are held to much higher standards in terms of justifying themselves.

Yes, they are. Exactly where did they fail in this capacity? You and everyone else here is assuming that they refused a request for the report.

Look fuckwit, the police are in a position of great power here. To perform their jobs, their members have certain priveledges that normal citizens don't (carrying concealed firearms, use of force, etc.). Because of this, they need to be held to a much higher standard of transparency to ensure that this power isn't being abused.

Good you understand then. So hold them to the same standards as departments across the country and don't expect them to have the DA read a report to the media. If they want it they can request it. It is public record.

This means that when someone claims that power is abused, especially in a fashion that catches the attention of a popular, state-wide media source, they *are* obligated to provide at the very least their side of the story, in a fashion that will reach all concerned parties. Y'know, something like a, say, PRESS RELEASE TO THE SAME PAPER THAT REPORTED THE FIRST STORY would fit the bill perfectly.

It is provided. Again, it's a matter of public record. However, they did not refuse it as you and others have been claiming.

But it does mean 1) there's more reason to believe it *is* what happened, and 2) they have all the more reason to clear their own name in this case.

Agreed.

When a newspaper this popular has a story accusing them of corruption, they are obligated to demonstrate that accusation as false. That means doing more than going "Nuh-uh!"

Then they made a mistake with the statement given by the DA. That's not an admission of guilt.

The president is supposed to review the information about the threat-capability of Iraq, and then decide if force was justified. He sent the information to war. Those facts have caused me to reserve my judgment.

Catching the parallels here, moron? Government agencies are required to be more transparent, to give ACTUAL REASONS FOR THEIR DECISIONS if they are to remain in the trust of the public they allegedly serve.

LMAO. Yes, I am. You're comparing the DA to the president of the United States and hoping that your analogy will hold water. The DA is not at the top of any totum poll.

How fucking stupid are you? You are attacking people who are... questioning the DA, and then you have the gall to claim that you aren't arguing against questioning the DA?

They aren't questioning the DA. They are saying he's lying because he didn't read the report in his statement. Quite a bit different.

Yeah, because it's not at all like the police have ever come forward, explaining their side of the story and SHOWING EVIDENCE that past, false claims abuse of power were, in fact, false, no?

Sure, they have. It depends on a lot of decisions, and as I said before not releasing the entire report was a bad idea. I do, however, disagree that it evidence that they are guilty.

[Kanastrous]

Is it just me, or does anyone else question why one should listen to accident-avoidance advice from someone who clearly sucks at avoiding accidents?

He was teaching out of a standard book, to Federal/California guidelines. Anyone who knew the material would have taught the class the same way; his personal accident record just made it funny.

re: thread topic - I'm usually inclined to wait and see what the official report says, when it's released. Then, the digging should start, for inconsistencies and to see if the investigators can be caught in a lie. Which is not to suggest that everyone shouldn't air their perspective; it's just easier to nail liars once they've printed the lie and put signatures to it.

[Thanas]

It is open to the public. It's just not posted on every window for all to see. You must request police reports they aren't given to you.

Nice try, but a simple press statement would suffice.

Besides the ruling of the DA. No matter how you want to dismiss it that does mean something.

George Bush's ruling that Iraq was a threat showed more evidence than the DA did. Something that has no arguments does not mean anything.

If there's a police report then it's open to the public. I've didn't miss three words here. You're failing to comprehend an entire concept. Show me where the police refused a request for the report, and I'll concede.

Ah yes, because failing to provide any evidence for their position must of course be the same as a refusal.

How many times do I have to say this: They have not provided one shred of argument. That's it. Simple as that.

Nice try. But the two accounts have to be of the same value to consider them of equal importance. What we have got from Mr. Hicks is a conclusive, logical layout of the events happening. What we have got from the DA is nothing but a single statement, a statement that does not explain anything. So no, your "they hold the same weight" spiel does not apply in the first place.

What you have from the DA is a statement given to the media. Quite different from an outright refusal.

Where did I say the DA refused to explain? All I said was that the DA did not explain anything. Which might not be a refusal, but simple incompetence. However, whether he refused to or just did not does not even matter to the debate. The simple fact is that he still has not made any argument. Nothing. No argument at all. How is that supposed to hold the same weight as a logical layout of the events which does in fact fit with similar precedents?

Is he obligated to do so?

He could be.

Note that I am not an expert on american criminal law. But if he is indeed obligated to sent the report to the FBI that would be a further dent in your argument.

How long is the standard waiting period?

I don't know for their size of department, or what their activity level is.

So in other words...could be weeks? months? Perfect opportunity for stonewalling, and IMO this kinda goes against the concept of the report being open to the public.

[Death from the Sea]

if this is still under investigation, then it is possible (and likely) that they wont share it with the public just yet. Because most agencies do not discuss ongoing investigations.

[Oni Koneko Damien]

if this is still under investigation, then it is possible (and likely) that they wont share it with the public just yet. Because most agencies do not discuss ongoing investigations.

And that would be a whole lot more believable and compelling argument than anything KA's put forward so far.

Still if that's the case, one has to wonder why no one's come forward and said, "Look, it's under investigation and we're not passing judgment until we have better evidence."

[Big Phil]

if this is still under investigation, then it is possible (and likely) that they wont share it with the public just yet. Because most agencies do not discuss ongoing investigations.

They would at least say it's still under investigation; the lack of ANY comment is pretty damning.

[Revan's Fire]

Good God, why do shitstorms like this have to happen near me? My school's had every homeroom teacher talk to their class about this, talking about how our views of local police should not be twisted by these events, and how we must be good law-abiding citizens. Disgusting.