TexasCHLforum.com

Three years after his manslaughter conviction, a former New Orleans police officer is getting a second chance to persuade a jury that he was justified in fatally shooting a man outside a strip mall during Hurricane Katrina's chaotic aftermath.

David Warren, whose retrial is scheduled to start Monday, was one of 20 officers charged in a series of federal investigations of alleged police misconduct in New Orleans. His December 2010 conviction was touted as a major milestone in the Justice Department's ambitious efforts to clean up the city's troubled police department.

Warren was one of the first to be tried. He will also be the first of several officers to get a retrial as federal prosecutors — dogged by misconduct allegations of their own — try to salvage cases that many viewed as catalysts for healing the city's post-Katrina wounds.

http://www.commercialappeal.com/news/20 ... -shooting/" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

That article sounds like a 3 ringed circus.

texanjoker wrote:That article sounds like a 3 ringed circus.

but it's NOLA, shouldn't expect anything else.

federal prosecutors — dogged by misconduct allegations of their own

Oh this can't be, tell me it isn't so!

He has now been acquitted..

http://www.policeone.com/legal/articles ... -shooting/" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

So to play devils advocate

Why would an armed police officer on the second floor shoot an unarmed man who at the time of the incident was not an immediate danger?

How would an armed person on the second floor be able to claim being in fear for their life when the person on the ground had no visible weapon and no readily available access to the second floor?

Why if it was a good clean shoot would the other officers tamper with evidence to the point of burning the body, including moving it, putting it in a car and the torching the whole mess?

No I am not bashing but rather exploring, there may have been misconduct on the part of the prosecuting attorney, but was the actual evidence considered or was just the misconduct and procedural errors considered?

JP171 wrote:So to play devils advocate

Why would an armed police officer on the second floor shoot an unarmed man who at the time of the incident was not an immediate danger?

How would an armed person on the second floor be able to claim being in fear for their life when the person on the ground had no visible weapon and no readily available access to the second floor?

Why if it was a good clean shoot would the other officers tamper with evidence to the point of burning the body, including moving it, putting it in a car and the torching the whole mess?

No I am not bashing but rather exploring, there may have been misconduct on the part of the prosecuting attorney, but was the actual evidence considered or was just the misconduct and procedural errors considered?

I don't think you get an acquittal because of procedural errors. That gets you a new trial, but not an acquittal.

JP171 wrote:So to play devils advocate

Why would an armed police officer on the second floor shoot an unarmed man who at the time of the incident was not an immediate danger?

How would an armed person on the second floor be able to claim being in fear for their life when the person on the ground had no visible weapon and no readily available access to the second floor?

Why if it was a good clean shoot would the other officers tamper with evidence to the point of burning the body, including moving it, putting it in a car and the torching the whole mess?

No I am not bashing but rather exploring, there may have been misconduct on the part of the prosecuting attorney, but was the actual evidence considered or was just the misconduct and procedural errors considered?

One of the reasons for the retrial was to give this officer a trial separate from the other three defendants. Maybe he didn't participate in the shooting or any of the alleged misconduct or cover up.

WildBill wrote:

JP171 wrote:So to play devils advocate

Why would an armed police officer on the second floor shoot an unarmed man who at the time of the incident was not an immediate danger?

How would an armed person on the second floor be able to claim being in fear for their life when the person on the ground had no visible weapon and no readily available access to the second floor?

Why if it was a good clean shoot would the other officers tamper with evidence to the point of burning the body, including moving it, putting it in a car and the torching the whole mess?

No I am not bashing but rather exploring, there may have been misconduct on the part of the prosecuting attorney, but was the actual evidence considered or was just the misconduct and procedural errors considered?

One of the reasons for the retrial was to give this officer a trial separate from the other three defendants. Maybe he didn't participate in the shooting or any of the alleged misconduct or cover up.

yes I am aware as to why a retrial was granted after the vacation of the original verdict. According to several articles I read about the retrial the judges instructions may leave questions, as well as the hung jury and the judges instruction to go back and render a verdict. many of the articles a I read leave a lot of questions in my mind as to the veracity of the defendants testimony and his trustworthiness. I have never heard of an officer not remembering a weapon until more than 3 years later, something I would remember if I thought someone had a weapon, there was no way for the person to have gained access to the area where the officer was unless he can chew thru a locked gate that covered the entire entryway. But all of this is in question and I think really should be explored, not blown over since atleast 1 jury thought he was infact guilty