True, but remember that they are staring straight down the barrel of the race pimps and the full wrath of the media. While I agree wholeheartedly that it would be better to get their side out earlier rather than later, they also have to consider (and prepare for) the onslaught of lawsuits and demagoguery. Anything they say now can, and will be, used against them in the months to follow.
I am now 95% convinced that the autopsy showed that Gentle was not moving away from the officer, nor was he kneeling while he was “executed”, but rather he was moving toward the officer, and the final shots were from relatively close distance. If that is the case, then any political damage would be mitigated by a convincing volume of forensic evidence. But mistakes, even trivial ones, have a way of haunting you when the professionally aggrieved get their bite at the apple (which, in this case, is usually someone’s wallet).
Correct. If he was shot at distance, there will be no powder burns on the shirt. However, if he was shot at close range, there will be powder burns on his shirt and head, plus blood spatter from the wounds will be found on the officer’s uniform, firearm, and possibly the patrol vehicle.
“remember that they are staring straight down the barrel of the race pimps and the full wrath of the media”
There was a classic example of that today when the talking point switched from “poor little unarmed teen” to “you’re trying to vilify the dead” in an eye blink when the photos were released. Every bit of information will be exploited in the service of the agenda, and if the media misreport an item and the truth is later released, they’ll cite the conflict between their own previous erroneous report and the correct one as evidence that the latter one has no credibility.
Let ‘em yammer, release only verified facts, and they have to make up their own ammo instead of using something you’ve given them. That’s just the smart way to handle something like this. You’ll never get ahead of the lies, you just have to refute them later.