How many versions from OCSD are you willing to accept?
Which one will you determine to be true? Which begs the question:
Why would you believe a government entity which has clearly already changed it's version of events?.
But, by the time the facts are presented, the rabid Libertarian cop haters will have moved on to the next fresh story, and will concoct a witch’s brew of paranoid ramblings
Nice try, but I've likely forgotten more about law enforcement procedures/investigations/public relations and tactics than you ever knew.
One not be a senior investigator to understand, based on that OCSD has reported and or not reported, that this shoot reeks bad.
This implies that OCSD has given its official version of events. They have not. The press office, we are told, said immediately after the shooting that the deputy "fearing for his safety/life/something" fired. They then corrected that and said "fearing for the safety of the children". I don't know that these are necesarily contradictory, or if the media accurately reported them, or what relationship they bear to what the deputy told his field sergeant, who presumably relayed the intel up the chain of command.
Perhaps there's a grand conspiracy within the OCSD to cover this up Seems more likely to me that imperfect information was initially released, and that it was quickly corrected.
Deciding that the OCSD has "clearly changed its version" is not an accurate or fair characterization of what the department has stated to the public to date.
>Nice try, but I've likely forgotten more about law enforcement procedures/investigations/public relations and tactics than you ever knew.
Bet you're wrong!
One not be a senior investigator to understand, based on that OCSD has reported and or not reported, that this shoot reeks bad.
Clearly, we won't agree on this topic. That statement tells me that no matter what facts, information and evidence becomes available, you've made up your mind. Which, I submit, proves my point for me.