Well I drew some inferences and filled some gaps... intentionally taking the devils advocate position opposite the media narrative. I intentionally described a righteous shoot.
I doubt my story will prove to be the exact story when the facts finally come out, but it is plausible based on selective accounts, similar to the plausibility of the media story derived from selective accounts supporting their narrative.
My guess is the truth lies closer to my made up story than it does to the media’s made up story. The point I attempt to make ... Both are clearly made up.
I am very wary of the idea that “we don’t know what actually happened, and we are uncomfortable believing one side over the other, so we will assume that everyone did something wrong, and the true story is somewhere in between.” The same thing happened in the Trayvon case, where people were bending over backwards trying to find where Zimmerman could be shown to share culpability (”he got out of his vehicle”, “he shouldn’t have followed him”, etc.), and then, one by one, we find that he did nothing wrong or out-of-the-ordinary for a person on neighborhood watch. But in many people’s mind, he is still somewhat at fault, because the split the difference mentality is so strong.
If the story is as his “friend” stated, the officer not only didn’t do anything wrong, he acted in the only way that he could, assuming he wished to see another day.
Choose your friends wisely...
https://mobile.twitter.com/stevenjhsieh/status/500433169108062208/photo/1