[ossiblue]

There's already a thread on this if you want to venture into PARF. Still, information is coming out very slowly. The fact the shooter will not talk to the local investigators is a smart legal move as the case was immediately turned over to outside state authorities due to the sensitivity and notoriety of the situation.

We can see a bit of the defense with a little reading between the lines. Both cops were relative rookies--the driver had 12 months on the force, the shooter 21 months, but only completed his field training a year ago. Driver testified he heard a loud noise as they drove slowly down the alley, and that both were startled by it. Immediately after the noise, the vicitim approached the driver's door from out of the dark, and it was then that the passenger fired through the window. This conflicts with original reports that she was talking to the driver before she was shot. Shooter's lawyer is floating the idea of fear of an ambush due to recent attacks on police. Not having cameras on does not appear to be a violation of policy, as currently written.

IMO, this will be explained as a result of inadequate training and inexperience, resulting in an accidental shooting. No one will be satisfied with this except the civil suit lawyers.