<modsnip>
Give me a specific quote where police are cast as “victims” - that’s another charged word. Who is casting them as “victims” and what impact does it have on anything? With specificity, how is it relevant to the objective facts?
Please provide a source that this was in fact a “first impression”. That is a very strong assertion.<modsnip>
<modsnip> You yourself previously referenced a first (or initial) impression in an unofficial report. ?
There's been much discussion about what police initially saw/may have seen when entering the pool room/were first impressed by/thought made sense/loosely concluded, and a host of other word usage that all means the same thing - they noted things when they found two hanged and deceased people and potentially a second crime scene. For me, this falls loosely under "first impression(s), and that's what I meant. The family called the reference to manner of death "irresponsible" rumors. The Star was more polite and called it police "confirmation" of probing the possibility of "murder-suicide". The title of the article below refers to it as "the working theory". I call all of it police "blabbering" because the information
came from police, according to the report. I guess another way to say it is, I think police talking to the press about manner of death in an ongoing investigation is a poor decision, no matter what word we use for it.
https://www.thestar.com/news/gta/20...gating-death-of-billionaire-and-his-wife.html
"Toronto police are investigating the possibility that the deaths of billionaire Barry Sherman and his wife were a
murder-suicide — a
theory the family is rejecting as
“irresponsible” rumors.
The bodies of Sherman, 75, and his wife, Honey, were found in their North York mansion just before noon Friday.
Officially, Toronto police have released little information about the deaths, beyond that they were deemed suspicious. But
police sources confirm to the Star that police are now probing the possibility that they were a murder-suicide."
And I'm not going to quote-search a term I didn't cite as quoted content. The police have been said to be performing tasks and using unnecessary resources because the family demanded it. I don't see the police as being coerced or forced into needless activity
as if they are victims of family demands. So, the "specificity" of my point about facts is exactly what I posted previously:
We can't have it both ways - the police merely doing the bidding of the rich, and the police professionally in command of their own investigation. That is, the police are functional adults. It would seem that they are looking for fact-based evidence when searching sewers and roofs and cars. If not, I don't think we can blame the family.