When the police kill an unarmed child and then try to justify their actions, they’re going to have to lie because there’s no justifiable reason to kill an unarmed child. Hence claiming that the dead child both fled and menanced them and pre-discrediting the evidence against them.
There’s an ocean of examples of police lying to cover up their killings. They lie so often that they got the courts to confirm they have no duty to tell the truth.
Your radical denial of where all the evidence points is not as moderate as you seem to believe.
When the police kill an unarmed child and then try to justify their actions, they’re going to have to lie because there’s no justifiable reason to kill an unarmed child. Hence claiming that the dead child both fled and menanced them and pre-discrediting the evidence against them.
There’s an ocean of examples of police lying to cover up their killings. They lie so often that they got the courts to confirm they have no duty to tell the truth.
Your radical denial of where all the evidence points is not as moderate as you seem to believe.
Unarmed?
Literally armed with a pellet gun. It’s in the title!
Yes, unarmed. As in not bearing a weapon. A toy is not a weapon and poses no threat at all.
That’s why toys have red tips. If there is no red tip, as in a replica, it looks and assumed to be real.