Oh yeah, I read it. It was almost laughable. We’re supposed to believe that the cop who fired the fatal shot was close enough to see the victim had bloodshot eyes but not close enough to see that his gun was in a holster? I remember reading the transcript the dispatcher shortly after it happened but I don’t remember any caution about the victim being a Green Beret - that was a convenient addition to the story, wasn’t it? There are so many holes in the testimony that you could sell it for swiss cheese.
Sad.
I thought better of you. I was mistaken. This was an article, not testimony. Things are still coming out on the incident and there still aren’t enough facts for objective people to make an informed, fair decision.