Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
If he had been obeying the law he wouldn't be dead. If you so much as risk disobeying an officer giving pulling you over for a speeding ticket it could get rather interesting, or deadly.
Yeah I thought that was common sense .. but I guess common sense isn’t too common .
In L.A there was a crazy lady that tried to stab officers with a knife and was shot and killed and BLM protested and wanted the police chief fired over it
That's what you get with discount ambulance chaser autopsies. From the professional examination:
"The report states Clark was shot seven times- once in the left thigh, three times in the side and three times in the back. The private autopsy, performed by Dr. Bennet Omalu, done at the request of the Clark family said Clark was shot eight times- with seven of those shots hitting him from behind."
So there you have it, he was turning away as he was getting shot, i.e. not complying and trying to get away. Still a bad shoot any way you look at it, but this criminal brought this upon himself
The first autopsy was not done by an ambulance chaser, you might want to do some research on Dr. Omalu.
There are frequently differing opinions on autopsies. Forensic pathologists frequently have to make educated guesses about trajectory and entry and exit, even the number of shots fired can be speculative because bullets can fragment or bounce off of a bone and take a path other than what would have been expected. You can't automatically dismiss the findings of one autopsy because a different one offers a different opinion.
The first autopsy was not done by an ambulance chaser, you might want to do some research on Dr. Omalu.
There are frequently differing opinions on autopsies. Forensic pathologists frequently have to make educated guesses about trajectory and entry and exit, even the number of shots fired can be speculative because bullets can fragment or bounce off of a bone and take a path other than what would have been expected. You can't automatically dismiss the findings of one autopsy because a different one offers a different opinion.
Nice try though
Thanks but I'll take the word of the State examiner carefully taking a month over a rent-a-doc with overnight results
Yeah I thought that was common sense .. but I guess common sense isn’t too common .
In L.A there was a crazy lady that tried to stab officers with a knife and was shot and killed and BLM protested and wanted the police chief fired over it
In a recent case in my neck of the woods, police shot a knife-wielding mother resisting enforcement of a Child Protective Services order removing a baby from a house (link to article). An earlier article said that they had contemplated charging the police officers but decided not to. It was a close call.
The first autopsy was not done by an ambulance chaser, you might want to do some research on Dr. Omalu.
There are frequently differing opinions on autopsies. Forensic pathologists frequently have to make educated guesses about trajectory and entry and exit, even the number of shots fired can be speculative because bullets can fragment or bounce off of a bone and take a path other than what would have been expected. You can't automatically dismiss the findings of one autopsy because a different one offers a different opinion.
Nice try though
I don't automatically take the word of the family, BLM, and other allies of a violent criminal over that of duly constituted authorities.
So he deserved to be shot 20 times and killed for an act of vandalism or theft?
The thug created the situation that led to his being shot. A cop has seconds to choose between shooting the perp and taking a chance on being shot himself.
According to the "Sacramento Bee" the District Attorney requested that their very own autopsy report be checked out by another qualified authority. They found that the autopsy done by the family (their representative ) has mistakes.
They also claim the victim had narcotics and alcohol in his system, which somehow explains the erratic behavior before he was shot and killed.
Sad story for everyone involved; plus another bridge won't get fixed when the 3-4 million dollar settlement is handed over.
According to the "Sacramento Bee" the District Attorney requested that their very own autopsy report be checked out by another qualified authority. They found that the autopsy done by the family (their representative ) has mistakes.
They also claim the victim had narcotics and alcohol in his system, which somehow explains the erratic behavior before he was shot and killed.
Sad story for everyone involved; plus another bridge won't get fixed when the 3-4 million dollar settlement is handed over.
Why lie? The Bee report is quite clear.
*********************************
Gin determined Clark was shot seven times total, with three rounds - not six - striking him in the back. Gin's findings also included a toxicology report, which found traces of cocaine, cannabis and codeine in Clark's system, as well as traces of codeine and hydrocodone in his urine.
*********************************
Traces virtually always indicate he was a user but not intoxicated. Alcohol does not appear to be mentioned.
My mistake, sorry. The point is he was under the influence of something stronger than root beer.
Again no indication that was true. If he was drunk or stoned they would have said so.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.