Your "example" to be consistent would require that the bullet fragment and wound were caused by the crazy BP agent or agents' bullet fragment would it not?
Yes. That is something I pointed out last week. A recent claim by the defense is that Ramos never hit the guy at all. They make a big deal out of the "chain of evidence" for the bullet fragment, suggesting that the wound was inflicted by the drug kingpin.
But we are also told that the wound shows the guy was running away from the agent while pointing a gun at him, and therefore supports the story that Ramos felt threatened.
Those are contradictory arguments. If the bullet isn't Ramos's bullet, it's trajectory CAN'T prove Ramos was threatened.
Further, the path of the bullet is rather inconsistent with a drug kingpin shooting his employee to "teach him a lesson". Unless the employee runs away from the kingpin, and then turns toward him pretending to shoot at him while the kingpin shoots at him.
Consistancy is not a strong point for the defense. I can't blame them, since the two agents told several contradictory stories themselves.