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?
Quote from the Sun Times piece: "Police have denied the arrest or shooting were improper."
ReplyDeleteThe 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.....
ReplyDeletePoint 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.