Wrong. That item was in the first (Daily News) story and was attributed to alleged "police sources", ie, NOT official channels. But thanks for being an audio-vusal aid for why it's wise to wait for a thorough investigation to be complete before jumping to knee-jerk conclusions and convicting the cop.
Anyway - - yet again - - who cares if she was or wasn't waving a stinking ID out the back window of a car that had to be forced over at 5:00am after reckless driving and an attempt to flee? A cop is going to stroll up and examine this alleged ID? Really?
Do you hear me laughing!!!!
It wasn't "alleged" -- it said "police sources" which means "cops on the ground". closest to the vehicle. And no one would think to say something like that except a police officer.
No one else on the ground there had "sources" giving out information -- only the police. So that came from a policeman in the know.
What makes you think that those "police sources" were not telling the truth from the start.
Do you really think that people out here are that naive???
Official sources are censoring sources selecting facts and twisting words to craft a narrative beneficial to the department.
I'll take police sources over official channels any day.
The point is that she put it out the window JUST BEFORE THE SHOOTING according to police sources on the ground at the scene -- which means that she wasn't asleep as official channels now allege.
That means that she saw the shooting and knows whether Polanco had his hands on the steering wheel or not.
AND if he didn't have his hands on the steering wheel and she saw he didn't the official channels would have her in front of cameras saying so and would be quoting her to the press ad infinitum 24 hours a day.
But the aren't.