Another Shooting Investigation
I was a little puzzled when I first read this story on the CHP shooting of some parolee last Sunday. I couldn't figure out why they were holding off on charging the fellow who got shot simply because they wanted to talk to some witnesses that were present when the whole thing started.
About the only thing those witnesses could provide is that the CHP had a complaint and thus a reason to stop the fellow, who eventually got shot, in the first place. Reading further, though, the officer noted the suspect didn't have his seatbelt fastened when he first approached him. I don't believe in seatbelt laws but I believe not wearing a seatbelt is reason enough to pull the guy over.
So what difference, as far as deciding what charges to press, would it make to talk to the people who made the original complaint? The officer's involved really have all the information needed as the bulk of the guy's offenses started when he refused to yield and the first two witnesses weren't around by that time.
Kinda like the D.A.'s office requesting the Cotton autopsy results be withheld until they could see them. Withholding the results wasn't going to change the cause of death, was it? Talking to the two witnesses shouldn't have any bearing on what charges are going to be filed, as I see it. The witnesses weren't there when the chase and shooting occurred.
Still, at least a couple things raised my eyebrows, at least in the Eureka Reporter version of the story. Quote: "Hislop said the officer ordered Bartow to stop before firing approximately three shots."
Approximately three shots? You'd think by now he'd know exactly how many shots were fired.
Quote: "They continued searching and found a bullet hole in Bartow’s right shoulder.".
Found a bullet hole in his shoulder while searching him? Seems to me it would be obvious the guy was shot, assuming he was shot at and was bleeding.
Strange report writing that Hislop does.