Sgt. Crowley's police report lost some credability today. The report claimed that she told him there were two "black men" in the home when he talked to her.
The woman, Whaley, who called 911 said she didn't even speak to the officer on the scene. She also said that she never assigned any color to the suspects. The taped 911 call shows that she didn't say anything about "black men".
I've been on the cops side in this, but if he got that part of his police report incorrect, he may have gotten other portions incorrect. Not a positive development for the officer.
__________________
In essentials, unity. In non-essentials, liberty. In all things, charity. Augustine
Sgt. Crowley's police report lost some credability today. The report claimed that she told him there were two "black men" in the home when he talked to her.
The woman, Whaley, who called 911 said she didn't even speak to the officer on the scene. She also said that she never assigned any color to the suspects. The taped 911 call shows that she didn't say anything about "black men".
I've been on the cops side in this, but if he got that part of his police report incorrect, he may have gotten other portions incorrect. Not a positive development for the officer.
Mike, the 911 tapes and police report are two different things, as I'm sure you're aware.
The lady made the 911 call - those verify no race was mentioned.
The lady then was, no doubt, asked for a statement, in which the officer wrote that she stated a race.
Now just because she didn't state one on the 911 call does not mean she didn't give one to the officer.
Why would it bear one way or the other for the officer? The officer had nothing to do with the 911 call. It only bears badly for the scholar who claims this was all about race. The officer loses no credibility IMO with the 911 tapes because he had nothing to do with them.
Mike, the 911 tapes and police report are two different things, as I'm sure you're aware.
The lady made the 911 call - those verify no race was mentioned.
1) The lady then was, no doubt, asked for a statement, in which the officer wrote that she stated a race.
Now just because she didn't state one on the 911 call does not mean she didn't give one to the officer.
2) Why would it bear one way or the other for the officer? The officer had nothing to do with the 911 call. It only bears badly for the scholar who claims this was all about race. The officer loses no credibility IMO with the 911 tapes because he had nothing to do with them.
1) She said she did not speak to the officer (SGT Crowley) on the scene AND that she never mentioned the race of the "suspects" anyway.
2) Because he is saying one thing and what he is saying is not 100% true-- thus he loses some credibility.
I still think the whole thing is both of their faults and could have been avoided if one of them would have just calmed down.
That Professor, with his age, has his past to draw as a frame of reference-- unfortunately this is normal human behavior. Call it what you want, but I am sure his American experience has been quite different from mine. I think he's old enough to be my Dad and I KNOW the stories that my Mom and Dad and they aren't good.
Given the position of the Police Officer, and the trust he has apparently earned, I really think that he was just having a bad day-- whether he was completely justified or not.
__________________
"The choices we make reveal the true nature of our character."
Last edited by Jermyn Davidson; 07-27-2009 at 05:36 PM.
Hybrid Mode
