In 2007, he was acquitted of charges of aggravated battery and discharging a weapon at a police officer. But the jury hung on the attempted murder charges, leading to his retrial. [More]If he didn't batter them and didn't discharge his weapon at them, how exactly did he attempt to murder four officers who shot him 28 times?
Tuesday, January 31, 2012
We're the Only Ones with Holes in More than Our Story Enough
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
2 comments:
Quote from the Sun Times piece: "Police have denied the arrest or shooting were improper."
The Waingrow excuse always seems to work, "I had to get it on, man! He was makin' a move! I had to get it on!"
It is so typical of police these days. Anyone with a firearm, or a pointed stick for that matter, who is not a member in good standing of the "Gang with Official State Sanction" is seen as the enemy.
You know I won't hesitate to call out my former co-workers, but.....
Point of order - a not guilty verdict on the discharging offense doesn't mean he didn't fire. Not guilty does not equal innocent.
Case in point - armed robbery captured on video, the clerk ID'd the crook, he gave a written confession and I located and identified the latent palm print he left on the counter. The jury went with 'not guilty' because we didn't do DNA.
See what I mean?
I'd like to see the forensic reports prior to judging this one.
Post a Comment