tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2740473071023227679.post7560738827124293110..comments2024-03-01T03:35:53.230-05:00Comments on Voice in the Wilderness: A FEW DRINKS THAT GOT A MAN SHOT DEADCharles Harvey Advocatehttp://www.blogger.com/profile/10900523382849668556noreply@blogger.comBlogger2125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2740473071023227679.post-81505170987939477442012-11-29T16:04:25.612-05:002012-11-29T16:04:25.612-05:00other questions unanswered what happen to the repo...other questions unanswered what happen to the report by the first officer on the seen? He was said to have asked Mr. Moore if he knew who he was where he'd been and what happened?The stories have changed so much first he was pointing a gun at him in a threating manner which was stated in the daily hearld I may add,then he reached in his pocket and pulled out the gun,also it was said he asked him to lay on the ground and he didnt comply but then its told they were walking to the patrol car before he asked if he had a weapon.Its strange how one story can change so much.How safe are we? When this kind hearted man who may have had a few drinks was gunned down in this manner,He should have been taken in charged and allowed his one phone call, and let the court decide his fate.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2740473071023227679.post-53221706236529989572012-11-01T11:46:58.865-04:002012-11-01T11:46:58.865-04:00According to autopsy he was around 115 pounds. Aft...According to autopsy he was around 115 pounds. After hearing the actual statement Trooper Pitman gave to SBI other things start to not line up. By Pitmans own words they were already at his patrol car when hes asked if he had any weapons, to which James tapped his right pocket twice to say he had something. James was not told to get on the ground, Pitman says he asked him not to reach for his pocket..James proceeded to reach over with his left hand opening up his right pocket and removing the gun and was shot when the gun was about waist high. Another trooper statement says James said he thought the tropper asked for the gun. So question becomes why would he reach with his left hand if he hadn't been told to hand it over. And seeing as how this is a far different story than the story realeased to the public by the highway patrol there is no reason to believe anything that is said from this point on. Also, the fact that the Hp supervisor from the scene told family members that the original statement was exactly what happened going as far as saying that "the scene was layed out picture perfect" says he asked Pitman several times was that what happened to which Pitman replied yes, but then his statement to SBI tells another story, so who lied the supervisor? the trooper? Who gets held responsible for the initial lie? If Pitman's first statement was what was released and then he changed the story is that not a "procedural error" to which the HP says their investigation shows none. I wonder why the HP wasn't as quick to offer up the new statement from Pitman as they were to offer up the first statement which is now proven to be mostly lies. The "transperncy" is definately not there seeing as how the public will know these things as facts until after the DA has made a "decision" on the matter. I think major differences in ones story should be the headlines in the newspaper rather than "no news" or "trooper back on duty". I'd just like to know that when all is said and done who will make public the lies that were told to paint a good man as a "violent drunk" in the publics eye before any investigation was made into the incident? The family had reason to believe the story was bogus and now that the famly knows they were right to question, they are left with only more questions. And the only people who can answer those questions have already lied to them from the beginning.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.com