Read the whole article. Of course that is what the officer says, but there is no forensic evidence that his vest had been stabbed.
If you or I made that claim it would be described as "self-serving" and heavily discounted.
I think the cop was trigger-happy and the settlement is actually too low for the injuries this guy got. If there was even the slightest stab mark in the vest, I would be on the other side, but there isn't. He wasn't stabbed.
I was wondering if there was evidence that his vest had been stabbed.
Would had to have gone through the shirt, too.
Seems like it would have been useful at a trial.
Maybe the Counties lawyers just got wobbly in the knees. Jury verdict for paralyzed plaintiffs can be quite steep.
Thanks for the clarification. I just read the excerpt (obviously). I hate it when people don’t read the articles and blurt out uninformed statements!