“I use the scientific method daily”
You have a phenomenon. With the scientific method the laws of physics apply, and hypotheses are not generated from whole cloth, but using a rational basis. Experiments are designed to test the hypothesis in a controlled setting, such experiments being repeatable. Etc.
The event we are discussing is a unique event in space-time.
It is an historical event, albeit a recent one.
The problems are not the same. The initial approach is not the same. There is indeed a lot of overlap in the terminology, causing misunderstanding. Logic, deduction, the rules of physics etc. apply to both types of problems.
Unlike scientific experiments, it is a non-repeatable event because even if the same people were put back there, the number of people and interactions would likely not play out in the exact same sequence, like replaying video. In addition, some of the people who were there are now dead.
Without a rational basis for an hypothesis, there would be an uncountable large number of possible hypotheses because the events played out as a results of decisions or reactions of a large number of people interacting with each other in non-predictable ways.
So one starts not with an hypotheses, but with information.
Information comes from sources. I don’t think we need to quibble about terminology, I have just been trying to explain the flow from sources of information along the way to establishing evidence, which is then applied to support or contradict an hypothesis. You did the same thing, you just named the photo as evidence, when in reality you processed it... [A photo by itself is a source of information. You have to document where and when it was taken, then you analyze it for facts. The body is here, etc. Then you analyze it compared to other facts from other sources of information. Where were the cops? Are these evidence cones? Then you draw your circles and arrows and along with your explanation of these facts in context, you submit your evidence.]
You conclude “For whatever reason, it is likely that rounds fired by police from those locations account for at least some of the dead and wounded in the parking lot.”
In addition there is the statement from LE that they did indeed fire. Presumably they hit some of the dead or wounded.
Now, you move to the motive of LE since they admittedly and provably fired into the parking lot.
This brings in (among others) the hypothetical scenario of the undercover cop in the bathroom —> LE fire to cover his withdrawal. I have not seen a source of information to support this hypothetical. Conservativetreehouse concluded that the cop with the beard (who has appeared circled in red on photos posted on FR) was likely not the undercover cop if there was one. He also comments on the blood in the bathroom . .
I have seen other sources of information which are not evaluated in your hypothetical motives about why the police fired into the parking lot.
Which is why I say, one starts with the sources of information (and evaluates them in context to each other), and not with an hypothesis, or in this case a hypothetical explanation of why the police shot. These other sources of information related to this specific event provide assertions which if true, are facts which can be established by forensic evidence. The caliber of round that shot Richie in the head, for example.
—
The historical proof standard demands not only evaluating all available source information, but searching for other sources; it demands that conflicting source information be explained as a part of the proof evaluation of the hypothesis.
We know we do not have all available information, but there is source information you have not included, which leads to the hypothesis that LE started firing after shots were fired between gang members. I do not start with an hypothesis, I follow the information where it leads.
—
Given the speed of events, the complexity of the crime scene (e.g. all the rounds fired), the sheer amount of testimonial and forensic results, I would not be surprised if there were some LE “mistakes”. It would take a huge human data / information management effort for everything to come out “clean”. I would be surprised if the Waco PD or the County Sheriff have the staffing and experience to accomplish that, even with no intentional messing with evidence.
—
Nothing wrong with sharing ideas and possible explanations. One reason I turn to FR is the posting of source information and FReepers’ analysis of it. Hypothesis development and evaluation is an iterative process; insights from others are valuable.
—
We all want the Truth, some of us approach it from different angles. I do not see a basis of source information related to this event which implies the hypothetical of the cop in the bath-room, an ambush, etc.
Servus.
The hypothetical cop in the bathroom (undercover, wearing possibly a wire and false colors) is one possible explanation for how the police might have been jizzed up enough to start shooting. Adrenalin runs high when people are expecting trouble, and more so when they have a reason to believe it is going down.
Any commotion would spike that, with or without an undercover operative, but the fight in the bathroom would be explained as well if there was a U/c with blown cover inside.
For whatever reason, active conflict spilled into the parking lot (usually because bikers will not risk establishments and take their differences out the door to sort out--that's ingrained, especially in a crowd that frequents establishments where alcohol is served.)
If there was a wired undercover involved, the discovery of the wire or his ID had likely been heard on a tactical channel.
If not, the commotion was still enough to cause an adrenalin spike among those who were ready to fire on trouble, and snipers were likely looking at the scene through their optics to get a better view.
Either could have been enough increase in tension for a round to be inadvertently touched off, and then the whole bunch would join in. It happens.
Maybe that wasn't the case at all, and the response was to someone shooting in the parking lot, to stop the shooter...which could have led to more drawing weapons and returning fire, although there is no evidence that happened (bullet holes, broken vehicle glass, etc.).
We're back in the stage where you brainstorm as many possible scenarios as you can, and when you have those ducks in a row, and introduce new evidence (which I guarantee will be scrutinized at this late date) well, you find some of those ducks won't fly and eliminate unsupported scenarios.
The delay in providing the public with information showing police to be in the clear likely means that they are not, or are burying Brady Material in order to make charges stick and themselves look better.
The longer they wait, the more people will doubt what they bring forth, and the more heavily it will be scrutinized.
Sequestering all 170 arrested by keeping bail at 1 million dollars doesn't add credibility, either, but reeks of squeezing people for information regardless of whether they were in the parking lot or inside the building.
I still wonder who are the owners of the commercial incarceration facility, and whether they might have a conflict of interest.