No argument here; either release useful information or don’t.
> Your argument here is basically, "Oh don't worry, that's just the report with the lies--the report with the truth exists somewhere, you'll get to see it eventually!"
Forced Entry doesn’t mean what people think it means and is probably correct on the report. As for selecting ‘None’ for injuries on the victim of a homicide, it sounds like the program that prints the report did that on its own (obviously needs to be fixed as computers shouldn’t be adding words to official reports). I don’t think it’s fair to call these things “lies” or use them as the basis for conspiracy theories as others here have.
> If you're arguing that not reporting the incident in the incident report, or not having transparency, are police norms, I won't disagree with you there, but that's a huge problem.
I would argue that restricting public access to complete police reports related to active investigations is both a norm and serves a legitimate state interest (protects the integrity of investigations). I would also argue that once the case is indicted/closed, it should be made available to the public for inspection.