Basically, if his gun isn’t holstered they can claim all kinds of things like he reached for his gun, or an accidental discharge, or all kinds of excuses for shooting a guy. It helps them frame the situation as dangerous and chaotic.
The broader goal? imo: For the officers: To hurt a guy. The way they treat people makes me think they like hurting people. For the feds: to ‘raise the temperature’ and agitate, presumably to incite retribution.
Im aware the 2nd paragraph reads like classic tinfoil hat stuff. But I’m not alone in thinking it’s true.
What would be too obvious? I’m not following what the goal of the “act” would have been.
Basically, if his gun isn’t holstered they can claim all kinds of things like he reached for his gun, or an accidental discharge, or all kinds of excuses for shooting a guy. It helps them frame the situation as dangerous and chaotic.
The broader goal? imo: For the officers: To hurt a guy. The way they treat people makes me think they like hurting people. For the feds: to ‘raise the temperature’ and agitate, presumably to incite retribution.
Im aware the 2nd paragraph reads like classic tinfoil hat stuff. But I’m not alone in thinking it’s true.