Except that is not what was charged. I'm all for giving the LEO the benefit of the doubt but you don't just charge interference/obstruction....especially on private property if there was a "real" offense you could charge.
Sent from my Kindle Fire using Tapatalk 2
However, you, like everyone else are going from the media reports, all I'm sayng is look at all sides. It doesn't give any explanations of why the thinking was what it was, media reports never do. They pick out the juicy bits of an incident, pander to local prejudices and sell newspare/advertising etc. people go along with whatever is reported, where's the cynicism here?
It's not so much giving anybody the doubt, it's about realising there may be more to an incident than one first thinks when one reads the write up, there could be far more to it from either or both sides than one imagines that caused this to happen. Perhaps it was set up to make the police look bad, perhaps the police bungled it worse than this makes it seem, whatever though there's more to it than this.