This seems like an unwholesome smear upon the victim that the original author should retract in shame.
I agree, wholesome smears are far better (duck’n & runn’n).
I’m not all that surprised at the ambiguity and debate. Something (supernaturally) wicked has this way come. When you have demons in the mix, things can literally get as confused as hell.
What the hell are you talking about? The author is merely explaining the facts about the specific nature of the traffic stop. And you don’t know either way if Castile was or wasn’t one of the robbers.