Daily Business Review article

Don Horn, quoted in the article:



"He's voicing a conclusion to a police officer before he's received the first police report," Horn said.



That is absolutely untrue. It was specifically because I was not voicing a conclusion, i.e. that the shooting was justified, that led to my removal. In the phone call to me I specifically told Det. McCully, and documented it in the February 23 email, that I could not reach that conclusion.



McCully went on to say Barquin had a gun in one hand and a sock in the other. Ranck told McCully that sounded implausible.


Billy Shields, the author of the Daily Business Review article, got these facts from the February 23 email, and he got them wrong. This was the sequence written in standard English from the email:


(1) I told Det. McCully that I had remembered the proffer being that Ofcr. Espinosa said (via proffer) specifically that Barquin had a firearm and had pointed it at him.


(2) McCully said that he had remembered that Espinosa had said he had seen something that "looked like" a "weapon."


(3) McCully checked his notes and verified that Espinosa had said Barquin had a firearm.


(4) McCully told me that Espinosa had said that Barquin had a sock on his hand and that perhaps Espinosa had misstook the sock for a firearm. This is what I told McCully sounded implausible.


(5) McCully then said that Espinosa had distinguished Barquin's hands: one had a sock, the other a firearm. Shields completely left this part out of his article.