And I don't care what you think, it is what you can prove which would move your statement from presumption to a supported statement. Your original statement still remains a presumption. If you care to move it out, find and post from Compean's testimony where he indicates his anger. Until that moment, your presumption is a presumption and your post 252 indicates a change in posture as I stated.
You are kicking their ass big time, LOL! The keyboard commandos watch CSI and they think their opinons trump actual facts.
I'm the guy who opined (note: not "presumed"--you are having difficulty with that word) that he either panicked, or went Rambo.
It's somewhat ironic that you feel you are entitled to your assumptions (e.g., the biggest one, the assumption that the comments you identify in the trial transcript are to be treated as the gospel truth by nature of them being uttered in the first place), yet are quick to complain about any assumption someone else might make.
Particularly mystifying is the reaction to comments about what Compean himself admits. This is where Ajnin led with his chin: he (emotionally) assures us that there is no policy to "file" a report, whereas Compean admits under oath that he violated the policy to "make" a report. Did you notice how quickly the subject was dropped when someone else posted the text of the policy? Did you notice that all we are doing is parsing words?
So you object to someone's comment that Compean was clowned by a dirtbag, and to someone else's comment that Compean was angry. Would you agree with the characterization that Compean's performance "was less than optimal for a law enforcement officer," and there's evidence that makes it permissible to infer that he "was not thinking clearly?"
That's what is funny about your argument: if you win it you still lose.