New Autopsy Details On Michael Brown

[37jetson]

It's not filing a false police report because the fact of the matter is there was someone shot.

If there is no police report how admissible and/or effective will the testimony of these people be in a case against the officer? Are we getting excited about what people told the media versus what they told the cops when it happened? I have no idea if all of these people are lying or misled the police.

[dscards]

1. Because you can't prove the witness was in fact willfully lying. What would you charge him with anyway? It's not perjury because he wasn't under oath. It's not filing a false police report because the fact of the matter is there was someone shot. What caused the shooting and the circumstances around it are all that is up for debate and that still has not been solved. And if this is the case, then you're saying that the bulk of witnesses are lying. Unless they got together and carefully crafted exactly what their story was going to be (which is not the case since one of the witness' words can be heard on video immediately after Brown was shot), it would be ridiculously hard to prove any willful intent to deceive.

2. You can't prove that they intended to cause a riot.

You people are outright laughable in your selective interpretations of the law.

Just to answer the question in bold above:

Lying (by a non-suspect) to an investigating officer can be prosecuted as Obstruction of Justice.