I've gotten so tired of the proponents not using their brains.
I just posted on another thread a description based solely on the statements made by the two BP agents, noting that if you made a movie of it the audience would complain that it wasn't realistic.
The gist of it: A hardened drug-smuggler, armed and dangerous, is running from the police who is NOT shooting at him. But rather than continuing to run, he TURNS TOWARD THE OFFICER, brandishing a loaded weapon. But when the officer shoots at him 14 times, the smuggler does NOT SHOOT BACK, and instead turns after the shots and starts running again.
But then he stops, and turns back just as the OTHER officer shows up. Again, he brandishes a loaded gun, but when the officer shoots one time at him, the evil drug smuggler turns away, again without firing a shot, and runs.
They insist a drug smuggler would carry a gun to protect himself, but then want us to believe that he would point the weapon at officers who were not shooting at him (which he would KNOW would cause them to shoot at him) and then NOT shoot back at them.
In other words, the evil Drug Smuggler shows more restraint in the use of deadly force than the two BP agents.
Don't forget that the two agents did not warn the other responding officers that the subject was armed.
Drug smugglers don't shoot at law enforcement officers because they have guns? Is that what you are saying?
That statement is extremely insulting. Typical elitist nonsense.
I suggest you read this http://www.nbpc.net/ramos_compean/rebuttal_to_sutton.pdf and then return and make your insulting charges.