Police Chief now says officer might have realized Michael Brown was robbery suspect
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-bloggers/3193465/posts
Which contradicts what he said before. So with all due respect why should be give him any more benefit of the doubt than any of the other witnesses who changed their story?
I am not sure what to think about this.
Let us stipulate that the local police department may not be the sharpest tools in the shed. I don’t fault them for that, really. Just sayin’. This whole episode has clearly overwhelmed them. And the folks who claim “militarization” of the police force—if this had NOT overwhelmed them, then they would have had to be ready for serious civil unrest at all times = militarization. So I don’t see how a rational person takes stock of every event of the last 2-3 weeks (including rumors and uncorroborated Sharptonisms and whatever convenient omissions might be made) and with the benefit of hindsight claims the right to armchair quarterback the whole thing. To be clear, I am neither a 100% supporter nor detractor of “the police”.
But no doubt, they (the local PD) have since pre-Michael Brown acquired skilled legal and perhaps PR representation and they are of course smart to do so. It is IMO in their interest to release snippets of information so that the “fog of war” starts to impinge upon the self-assumed righteousness of the feral crowd. If the rioter’s side is going to work to poison the well, it’s fair game to chuck it right back at them.
Indeed, did we not learn this with GWB? To sit passively while the other side throws dirtbomb after dirtbomb may have some aspects of acting “above the fray” but the cumulative effect of doing nothing in the face of relentless attack is a negative.