For example, wondering who in the chain of command was involved in the decisions leading to an officer shooting is not a 'crackpot idea' to me.
One of your links refers to Betty asking a poster if they read the story linked on a thread (I think-the link was not perfect). How can THAT possibly be a 'crackpot idea'.
Now, smearing someone you never met, through innuendo, that is the action of a crackpot, IMO.
ROFL! As if the officer has to wait to get authorization before using deadly force. That IS a crackpot idea. If you're a cop and somebody pulls a gun on you, you don't have to waste time calling your boss before you draw your weapon and stop that idiot dead in his tracks.
In the post in question, betty boop said:
Here's what I need to know: Who authorized the use of force at the scene? What name is written down on the bottom line? If I could get an answer to that question, then perhaps I could achieve greater clarity WRT this problem.
Your answer is, betty, that no one authorized force before the fact. The cops were using their discretion, which they are allowed to do under conditions like that. The subsequent investigation will clarify whether the surviving cops who fired on Matthews acted in the right or in the wrong.
You can wait for the results of that investigation to get "clarity" if you want, but as for me, I don't believe the cops are lying when they said what happened.