Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

To: RightFighter

He was being pursued for shooting him in the face not hitting him with the gun. How else would the prosecutor be able to have the ballistics expert testify that the bullet casing from the pool party shooting matched the bullet casing at the shooting of the police officer. Why would anyone have a motive to shoot this police officer other than the perpetrator he was hotly pursuing.
Physical evidence is helpful in gaining a conviction but a jury can always use deductive logic as to motive and opportunity to reach a beyond a reasonable doubt standard.
Anyone trying to decide this case from media reports interposed by the defendant’s supporters is on a fool’s mission.The jury made the decision and 4 separate appeals courts upheld it.


42 posted on 09/21/2011 11:58:06 AM PDT by chuckee
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 36 | View Replies ]


To: chuckee

No, the officer was pursuing him for hitting a guy in the face with a gun at the Burger King parking lot. The guy being pursued just happened to have shot someone in the face earlier in the evening in an apparently unrelated incident, but the officer who died (McPhail) was off duty and I didn’t see any evidence that he had somehow made a connection between this incident and the earlier shooting, which he may not have even known about, since he was off duty.

The defendant in this case may have shot the officer because he knew he had shot someone earlier and he didn’t want to go to jail for that crime, but the officer who was shot was pursuing him for a different reason.


51 posted on 09/21/2011 1:35:29 PM PDT by RightFighter (Now back to my war station.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 42 | View Replies ]

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article


FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson