Chicago's interim police superintendent said Tuesday that the fatal shooting of a man on the West Side as he ran from police officers appeared to be justified, saying an officer fired at him after he pointed a handgun at them.
Starks said he was on the scene when the crowd gathered Monday night, and his reaction was "a little dismay and also an understanding of how sometimes a community is frustrated when maybe the wrong information gets out and they are not privy to all the facts of an investigation."
The acting Superintendent acted like a Superintendent. He put the story out there as it happened and "diplomatically" put the blame of misinformation where it belonged, in the community.
I think some out there, myself included, would of expected the acting supe to throw the coppers under the bus.
This is by no means an endorsement of Dana
We are just glad we didn't have images of Dana hugging a minister and then stating that those involved will be disciplined.
4 comments:
SCS,
You called this one on the money. The Cline Clout Babies are working as hard as they can to get one of their own in to perpetuate the clout game. Mattie must be made at any cost. Two lieutenants tests wasn't enough.
Anyone is better than what we had to deal with during the Cline Reign of Terror.
Phil Cline is feeling the heat of allegations made 20 years ago. It started in 1980 on the West Side. Then Sergeant Cline broke up the largest heroin/cocaine operation and arrested a man named, Charles "C.W." Wilson.
During Wilson's trial, a federal judge questioned the authenticity of dozens of Cline's search warrants and dismissed the related evidence. Cline maintains an investigation later cleared him of falsifying the warrants.
There were also allegations by defense lawyers that Cline had concocted evidence, stolen money and took bribes --allegations Cline never refuted at trial because he had vowed to take the fifth if called to testify in the case that he himself had supervised.
WHAT IS PROMPTING THE RETRACTION?
Anonymous said...
WHAT IS PROMPTING THE RETRACTION?
Fri Aug 10, 06:02:00 AM
I should have clarified my position. The retraction was something I had posted that contradicted my Starks opinion. I should have deleted that part but instead I left it up and put up a retraction. My apologies for any confusion.
Post a Comment