Beercat wrote:
WOW! Anyone can say anything and not say who they are, interesting .......
What is even more interesting is why you took the bait or are making this stuff up.
There is a video that was given to the FBI early on, it will tell ......... stop with the story telling, just let the system work. If the officer is guilty he should be punished, if he isn't he is owed a bunch of apologies .......
"WOW! Anyone can say anything and not say who they are, interesting ......."
[In case you missed it, this is from the St. Louis Post Dispatch--a very responsible newspaper.
Also, both witnesses have met with the FBI and St. Louis County police department.
If anyone is making anything up, it will be well tested.]
"What is even more interesting is why you took the bait or are making this stuff up."
[I took the bait because I read more than UH, and I read more responsibly, perhaps than you. I challenge you to point out anything you think I made up.]
"There is a video that was given to the FBI early on, it will tell" [I don't know anything about a video, and would like to hear about it. Certainly such a video might tell a lot.]
"........ stop with the story telling". [Just pointing out a responsible newspaper article is not story-telling.]. "just let the system work."
"If the officer is guilty he should be punished," [Agree]. "if he isn't he is owed a bunch of apologies ......"
[Don't know he might be owed any apologies; maybe you can tell us.]
A lot people on this site have a great emotional investment in the narrative they jumped to when they first read about the shooting: some n----r f---ed with a cop, and got what he deserved!
As info comes out, they cling desperately to their original narrative, panicking when it is challenged.
We now have five or six eye witnesses, an audio tape, and possibly a video(???).
We don't know what else there might be.
If the prosecutor returns an indictment, we have a good chance of finding out fairly clearly what happened.