Berkeley (MO) officials: Man killed by police had pointed gun at officer

[branford]

67. First, I indicated earlier that the case was awaiting prosecutor review,

but the police investigation, under the new stringent post-Michael Brown rules, has recommended that no charges be filed. Moreover, yes, these witnesses indeed do sound like little more than friends and family of the deceased.

http://www.stltoday.com/news/local/crime-and-courts/st-louis-police-seek-no-charges-in-officer-s-killing/article_613ee14a-5c6f-50a9-9566-009df039d49e.html

I give very little credence to alleged witnesses that the family lawyer claims exists, but has still has not identified months after the shooting. You complain bitterly that the police refuse to release enough evidence for the public to adequately review police shootings, including the Myers case. Accordingly, if the alleged witnesses that exonerate Myers exist, why are you not demanding they too be immediately identified. Doesn't the public have a right to know?

Quite frankly, as an attorney, I recognize the common tactic being used by the family counsel. Vaguely claim you have some indisputable evidence in order to shape public opinion in the early stage of an investigation and pressure the authorities while you search for some real evidence. Unfortunately, at some point, the family attorney has to basically put-up or shut-up. Since these purported witnesses have not been revealed thus far and the police investigation has concluded, all indications are that these witnesses were merely a bluff, or did not actually witness anything other than hear inadmissible rumor and innuendo, like the infamous sandwich. Hence, the quintessential "friends and family are sure the deceased did nothing wrong, but can't prove it" witnesses.

Now, what evidence or identifiable witness testimony can you cite to that actually disputes the officer's account. It's certainly not the recovered fired gun, shell casings, Myers' clothes, the autopsy, his social media postings, his upcoming trial for illegal weapons possession, or his breach of his bail conditions. The fact that the officer was a conservative Republican, unsurprising and relatively banal for a MO police officer, doesn't constitute evidence of anything, no less bigotry, DU stereotypes notwithstanding.

If the officer was a "right-wing bigot" and "loose cannon vigilante" as you claim, there should be more than ample documentary evidence of actual racism and discrimination, as well as at least a few harassment and excessive force complaints. Nevertheless, I've read nothing more that he doesn't support President Obama's policies, and considering public polling, more than half the country appears to agree.