Considering that the defense is not at a grand jury hearing and the prosecutor gets to selectively present the evidence, the odds are stacked against a defendant.

Either the prosecutor didn't want to indict someone on his team, the jury members have hero syndrome when it comes to cops, or both.

Just curious, but what is the rule of engagement when approaching a suspect with a loaded weapon? I watched the video with audio and on one hand, I can see that from the information the officers were given, they had to assume this guy had a loaded weapon. They were also informed that he was pointing it at children. I can understand why they would be on high alert going into that situation. Regardless, that doesn't justify the fact that they shot first and then moved in to investigate afterwards.

Is there a law stating that they must give verbal warning to a suspect prior to opening fire or is that purely a judgement call? Seems like an area where ethical and legal responsibilities don't match up.

It's tough to say because there's no audio and the framerate of the surveillence video is low, but it looks like he didn't even see the officers coming. It looks like he was facing 90 degrees away from them when they fired.

KC Native had posted a better video link earlier in this thread that has audio and multiple cameras: http://www.whio.com/news/news/crime-...rd-case/nhRwM/

However, I believe you are correct. It certainly looks like the suspect was oblivious to the police presence until he was hit with a bullet.

A prosecutor is selected from the DA's office, in high profile cases the DA him/herself presents.

But returns of no bill reflect poorly on a DA and often see the out office for ineffectiveness. That's not even figuring in the high profile and emotional nature of this case. A DA would be playing a high stakes game with their career to rig this particular presentation.

Page cannot be found

So what I am seeing in the video (the one without sound) it looks like the poor guy lunged back at the gun for some reason. Was that when the shots were fired or before that. If it was before that looks really bad to me, if it is after he lunges I guess I could see them opening fire. Just a bad thing all around.

I sat on a grand jury for a year and a half. We didn't really see any high profile cases though.

Well, from the crappy video linked in the OP, it looks like some guy was hanging out in the dog food aisle of Wal Mart absentmindedly fidgeting with a toy gun. From the corner of his eye he saw a guy running at him with a drawn pistol. He freaked out and tried to run away, dropping the toy and ducking into the next aisle. In the next aisle he saw a second guy running at him pointing a rifle at him. He freaked out some more and started hopping around like a startled deer while obviously unarmed. Was it at this point that SuperCop shot him to death?

Hmm, not sure what happened to the first url. It looks like this one works:

http://www.whio.com/news/news/crime-...rd-case/nhRwM/

When I saw the first video I couldn't clearly tell when the shot was fired. When watching the video with audio, it sounds like the shot is fired before the officers even enter the video frame.

Wow. 1)The guy calling in was blatantly lying about him pointing a gun at the two kids. 2) The cop who shot him had cover behind a pallet of kitty litter and should have at least yelled, "Freeze, drop your weapon!" or somesuch before gunning him down.

Yeah, you're right, I thought the same thing.

Ahh, this almost is like the one anti-gunner said he would go around saying people were threatening people with a gun to get a lethal response.


If this person lied to 911 and the officer came in expecting a threat, he needs to be charged. And it is sad the cop was let go without punishment. His decision making should not be on the force.

The cop has cover behind a pallet of Tidy Cats kitty litter.

http://di1-4.shoppingshadow.com/imag...tter+Scoop.jpg