Quote:
Originally Posted by filtherton
Maybe the informant's informant lied? How far back can you go? The first thing that went wrong is irrelevant, because it's completely arbitrary. Maybe the first thing that went wrong was the cops deciding that their informant was credible in this particular instance.
What matters is that the police somehow used bad information or corrupted good information to break down the door of and start a gunfight with someone who was completely undeserving. If you are in a position where you are knocking down someone's door with guns drawn, you better be damn sure that you're knocking down the right door, and if you happen to knock down the wrong door you need to be held accountable.
|
I agree with this, but I don't think the informant's role is irrelevant. If it weren't for the informant, there might not have been any roles at all. The cops wanted a gang member, and this guy has guns. They use a supposedly reliable informant to find out where he is, but it doesn't work out and there's a fuck up. Why is the informant's role suddenly irrelevant? Are you suggesting they leave this out of their investigation?
__________________
Knowing that death is certain and that the time of death is uncertain, what's the most important thing?
—Bhikkhuni Pema Chödrön
Humankind cannot bear very much reality.
—From "Burnt Norton," Four Quartets (1936), T. S. Eliot
|