Replies

Reaching for a loaded firearm... NOT STATED. (At least you said "Maybe") If that were the case, why wasn't it stated. Seems the FBI spokesperson indicated that there was an action by both Nethercott & Riddl(ed). The action was not stated. "Why" is the point, and the reality=? There was no justification for the shooting stated in the FBI PR.

Please note that the article also says that Riddl(ed) was taken to the hospital. Nethercott was arrested. It is not stated that Riddl(ed) was arrested, WHY?

Riddl(ed) may have been reaching to "scratch his ..." but the article doesn't say. It doesn't mention any gun with respect to Riddl(ed). The group may have been heavily armed, but was Riddl(ed)? If there is a PR, then it should have stated something to the effect of (select a few):
a. He reached for a firearm.
b. He reached for a loaded firearm (as opposed to supposing it was loaded)
c. Riddl(ed) was armed.
d. Riddl(ed) was arrested for ...

Well what are the FACTS? Not stated. Yes, there is a presumption in law that Agents are presumed to be doing their duty; but that is all they have going for them in this article. There is an absence of fact.

Instead of writing in red why not just read. Remember, they are not called Famous But Incompetant for nothing.