There is a perfect case that illustrates your point. They have indeed given up on propriety and are now merely stonewalling.
Some years ago, Canada's iconic Royal Canadian Mounted Police attacked and killed a man with a Taser within 23 seconds encountering him. There had been reports of a 'disturbed man' acting weird.
The first police reports used words like "wild man" and "berserk". They claimed he resisted and engaged in a prolonged struggle with police, four of them against one. Later, they released information that the man was an alcoholic and had a criminal past in Poland, where he had come from.
They claims were blown away by a private video the RCMP had tried to suppress, when released it revealed their story to be myth, a complete fabrication. A Royal Commission of inquiry was called [it reports to no one and once charged cannot be stopped by any outside force]. Between the time of the incident, and the revelation at the inquiry, the RCMP maintained their version of events. When questioned about it by the presiding justice, an RCMP spokesman simpoly said "it was not sworn evidence." In other words its OK to outright lie and to maintain that lie so long as it is not sworn evidence which would lead to charges of obstruction of justice.
Robert Dzieka
Think it through. They have taken their position, have doctored the official record, what happens now? The ACLU will go on suing to get information and eventually run out of money. The media will move on since this story is getting way to detailed and complicated, and the visuals are all old.
The cop who shot the kid gets some leave, a shrink for a year and all is at it was....
