It still seems ridiculous that they are even having a protest. It essentially means that they think it's more likely that cops travel around with guns not registered to anyone they know just in case they need to plant it on someone than it is that a heroin dealer with a history of weapons charges was carrying a gun....Seriously, how stupid do you have to be?
Do you mean a heroin dealer who "had a gun" that had none of his DNA on it at all, but it did have the officer's DNA on it? The same officer who said before shooting the heroin dealer that he was going to kill him? This case sounds pretty fishy. The judges comment about how unlikely it is that an urban drug dealer wouldn't have a gun on him, and that was part of his determination rather than the actual evidence. Again the evidence shows that the dead man's DNA was not on the gun, but the DNA that was on the gun belonged to the cop that killed him.
Please start one if interested. I rarely read this site the last few weeks and that will continue for awhile
