Police not guilty in groom's death, page 3

Originally posted by dbates
Well, I think you can make the connection that he might have hurt someone else. He was driving while intoxicated, attempted to run over one policeman, rammed their car, and backed up so he could ram it again. That hardly sounds like a person you want out driving around town and is much different from someone who just has a record.

ALLEGEDLY he tried to run over a policeman. If it's not on video it's the word of trigger-happy cops vs. the suspect. Police automatically get a head start in terms of credibility just for being what they are, and cops in a group in a situation like this will sure as Hell "get their story straight" between them before their superiors or backup gets there.

His record is immaterial. I've worked with people who've had criminal records. Should I have the right to strap a piece to my hip and draw it every time I see such a co-worker, "just in case"?

Driving while intoxicated--the cops had NO way of proving this before Bell was killed and his blood alcohol checked. Had they arrested him alive they could have run a Breathalyzer on him. At the time of the shooting all they had to go on, as far as his intoxication level, was assumption--not enough to pull a gun and shoot.

As for whether he rammed their car, again, I want to see the video evidence, the paint match, a match of the dents on the cops' car to the structure of Bell's vehicle, etc. I wouldn't put it past a group of police who just emptied their guns into two people to "stage" an incident to make it look like self-defense. Frankly I'm surprised they didn't plant a gun in Bell's car. Maybe nobody thought of it.