….Regarding the three Menlo Park police officers involved in the shooting and killing of an alleged burglary suspect on November 11. Here are a few questions that need answering before we hear from San Mateo County District Attorney Steve Wagstaffe’s stock conclusion that “the officers acted entirely reasonably in gunning down the suspect.” Case closed.
- Why was the suspects dead body apparently allowed to be dragged around the crime scene, potentially irreparably
compromising the evidence?
- Why is Wagstaffe prematurely running interference for these three officers by predicting, even before his crime lab has completed its testing, that the three body worn cameras, attached to each of the officers, will contain no video evidence of this is incident?
- Why were potential citizen witnesses apparently told not to speak to or cooperate with the press?
- Did the gun the police claim was found near the suspects body belong to the suspect, or was it placed there by the police?
Please keep digging for the truth in this matter. We need credible answers, not the police and prosecutorial obfuscation. Thus far the answers we are hearing from the police and the district attorney don’t pass the smell test.
Readers response criticizes attorney
….. I also applaud the Daily Post for its continued coverage of the officer involved shooting in Menlo Park, but I am appalled by James insinuation of police corruption. Body cams worn by police officers are a very new technology that is still undergoing development, both in regard to technology and the standards of usage.
I recently spoke with an acquaintance in law enforcement about a pursuit involving a half dozen officers that all had body cams, but not one of them remembered to turn theirs on.
It is simply not a priority to fumble around trying to activate an electronic device while lives are potentially in danger.As their usage becomes more commonplace, perhaps there will be a better solution to activate them when appropriate.
As for the reason the body was moved, this was covered already in previous reports. The body of the suspect was on top of the gun and the logical thing to do is move the suspect away from the gun when the gun that cannot be moved away from the suspect.
This action could have saved the lives of both the officers and the young boy that witnessed the shooting.
What upsets me the most is that you would accuse a police officer in this era of carrying a “throw-down gun” to plant on an unarmed suspect.
This is the folly of television, movies and crime novels. I find the mere implication that this could be the case to be absolutely despicable and disgusting.
You are no different than those fueling the rioting and violence in Ferguson, Mo., through hyperbole and rhetoric. I am all for watching the watchers, but let the system do its work and allow all the facts to be gathered before making such a libelous statements.
Editors note: Mr. James and Mr. David have both presented excellent arguments. We hope the discussions on this important subject continue……
Article powered by Dragon Dictation an ipad App
Full version: http://www.padailypost.com