Tuesday, January 31, 2012

We're the Only Ones with Holes in More than Our Story Enough

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? 

2 comments:

  1. 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.

    ReplyDelete
  2. 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.

    ReplyDelete

Keep it on topic. Submit tips on different topics via left sidebar Contact Form.

Note: Only a member of this blog may post a comment.