They stopped because they believed he was carrying a gun, the chief said. What gave the police officers cause to believe he was carrying a gun?
- The article doesn’t say. We do know that (1) there was a report of shots fired and (2) he was in the vicinity of it. Anything else is an assumption by the reader of the article.
they are cruising down the street at 35 or 40 miles an hour (conservatively),
-Made up fact. Their job was to go to the area the call was reported and look for people who might have fired the shot. Why do you believe they would do it a 40 mph?
they see this guy walking down the street and say to each other, “That guy has a gun. We can’t see the gun, we don’t have anyone that says he’s got a gun, but we know, he has a gun.”
- Made up fact. From the article, it could be read that he had his hand in his shirt. Perhaps he was sweating, out of breath, matched a description, had a bulge under his shirt, the gun was partially visible, he turned away when he saw them, acted suspiciously, etc. The point is that we don’t know, but you make up out of whole cloth a conversation between the cops leaving capriciousness as the only explanantion. Whatever it was that piqued their suspicion, they were RIGHT. He did have a gun.
, they come to a screeching halt and tell him to take his hands out of his pockets.
-Exactly as they should do. Him not complying is where this goes wrong for him.
Something doesn’t look right here.
Either they saw something that gave them pause or this is right out of Minority Report.
-Either they saw something that gave them pause.... Exactly. Either the cops saw something that gave them pause, or they happened to coincidentally stop someone who coincidentally had a gun coincidentally in the vicinity of a shots fired report who coincidentally refused to comply with their instructions to show his hands, and coincidentally pulled the gun out on the police. Which version is more likely?
Actually, he did comply. His hand just happened to contain a .357. :-(
I just wish "journalists" would do their job and investigate and report the FACTS.
Yes, almost all of my assumptions were made using ONLY what the article gave as facts or other possible scenarios.
For instance, We do know that (1) there was a report of shots fired and (2) he was in the vicinity of it.
We do know #1. #2 is an assumption on your part.
They could have been miles away from the vicinity that shots were fired in. The article doesn't say how close it was to that area.
Why would I think they would go to a report of shots fired at a speed of 35 or 40 MPH?
#1, if they had the lights and siren going they were probably going too fast to notice this guy on the streets. Otherwise, most city streets have speed limits of 25 to 40 MPH depending on the street and circumstance.
The article doesn't say WHY the police thought he had a gun. Just that they did.
Normally don't you have a suspicion based on some observation of something before you act?
Police aren't that different from you and me. But the article doesn't say.
The article stinks and you can make all the assumptions needed for just about ANY scenario you want if all you do is go by the article.
My point is that if you believe the article, then yes, this could have all been coincidence with the police harassing a citizen that just happened to be armed.
Is that what I believe happened? Probably not.