[[The fact that he was not engaged in any terrorist activity when he was shot nor did he have any hostages at the time he was shot?]]
What hte hell does that have to do with the situation? IF he attacked the officers, they had a right to defend themselves- I asked if you had evidence that he did not attack them- do you?
[[It would also appear that the agent’s report is unraveling]]
Accordign to two officials, accordign to hte others they were attacked by the suspect- As you know, different accounts of situations happen when chaos erupts- and IF the two are goign to claim there was no weapon when the others said there was then they will have to prove there wasn’t any weapons- unti lthen it’s premature to be callign anyoen liars when a chaotic situation could very well have, and indeed appears to have, casued confusion abotu what went down- Who’s to say the two who said htere was no weapon simply didn’t have a good view of what happened? who’s to say they are right and hte others wrong?
"What proof do you have that they werren’t?"
It's the proof you asked for that he wasn't a terrorist or hostage taker at the time he was shot.
You do remember asking what proof I had, do you not?
So, what weapon was actually recovered from the dead man's hands?
No one seems to know what it actually was, including the agent who shot him. Seems to me after you shoot a man attacking you with a weapon and he goes down, you would then go over and remove that weapon from his reach in case he gets back up right? And then after doing that you would collect that weapon as evidence, right?
So what was it?