No, Chucky... See page 62. His first statement was:
OK. I fail to see the importance of the distinction between "he thought it was a gun" and "It looked like a gun".
Later he said he was never certain it was a gun. He said he thought he was in danger -- so his "looked like a gun" is more of a statement than a "well, it had some passing resemblance to a gun, not that I really THINK it was a gun or anything".
If COmpean really thought there was a gun, it's odd he let Ramos run over the hill without yelling "look out, he's got a gun". It's odd that both Ramos and Compean never mentioned a gun to the other 3 agents who were there at the time, or the others who showed up while the suspect was still at large.
You have to realise that you are essentially arguing that we have to take the word of two people charged with multiple crimes when they simply SAY they thought there was a gun, in the absense of ANY other evidence that there was a gun. Would you expect them to say "no, we didn't see a gun, but we shot anyway"? They are saying exactly what you would expect them to say in order to get off.
The one agent is saying he saw a gun at exactly the time the other agent says he was sure there was no danger so he stopped shooting. There is no way you could ever prove they DIDN'T think they had seen a gun, so their testimony is essentially irrefutable, even if you had captured the guy and there was no gun they could still say they THOUGHT he had one. And conveniently, they all agree he had no gun in his hands at ANY of the times that a 3rd agent could see him, ONLY when he was out of view of everybody BUT the two who were charged with the crimes.
Your case is hanging on unimpeachable statements by two people who know those statements are what they need to say to get off. I don't discount that their lawyers and union reps told them this, but they wouldn't have to, we all know that's what you have to say to justify a shooting.
When given such evidence, that can't be refuted directly because it is state of mind, you look for collaberating evidence. There is none. There are NO actions taken by EITHER of the two men to suggest they thought there was a gun, EXCEPT the shootings themselves. They warned no other agent, or even each other, about a gun. They never mentioned a gun, or feeling threatened, to ANYBODY. There was no warning of am armed suspect on the loose. They didn't run for cover behind the rise, the both testified that after the guy "dissappeared" behind a bush, rather than pursue him they TURNED THEIR BACKS, with Compean picking up shells.
If I had just thought a guy pointed a gun at me, and they were hiding behind a bush, I don't think I'd turn my back. Nothing they did makes ANY sense if they thought the guy had a weapon. There is absolutely NOTHING in the record other than their statements that lends ANY support to the idea that the man had a weapon.
BTW, why did you decide to start making fun of my name? When it was clear that the jig was up now that the DHS report is out?