[1rudeboy]

I’m going to back off for a while and let people digest the opinion. Even if only 10% bother to read it, that will be 10% more people capable of having an intelligent discussion about it . . . the evidence presented by the comments (so far) on this thread is grim.

[freespirited]

I have now read most of it. I suppose it could be worse, but not by much.

[CharlesWayneCT]

I read the first 8 pages, which I found to be an excellent and succinct description of the events of that day.

It is funny that we have to read a court document to get a better description of the event than we ever got from the media.

[editor-surveyor]

"Even if only 10% bother to read it, that will be 10% more people capable of having an intelligent discussion about it"

I will presume that you have read the document; what is remaining that prevents you from understanding that the agents were firing their weapons in performance of their sworn duty, and thus did not fire their weapons in the commission of a crime? Are you really that twisted?

The prosecution of this case was the crime.