Canadian_watcher » 28 May 2013 06:25 wrote:Burnt Hill » Mon May 27, 2013 3:19 pm wrote:I know, we have gone from "extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence" to extraordinary claims = certain conspiracy, no evidence needed.
I am not saying that's how you operate C_w. But it is why I often play devils advocate.
I appreciate a devil's advocate POV.
I wonder though, if it isn't a bit of an extraordinary claim on the part of the FBI that this unarmed guy was able to threaten the life of the officers to the extent that he had to be fatally shot in order to stop him. Where's the evidence?
This is a fair point tho it doesn't have to involve a premeditated hit, just a situation where the restraints on power are out to lunch.
But ultimately that means nothing. I know people who have claimed coersion to confess to crimes that included threats on their life. I can easily see a situation where some agent tries this, pissed off interviewee calls their bluff, gets aggro says "go on then" and suddenly the agent is in fear of their life, having escalated the situation themselves.
I'm not saying this happened, but it seems possible to me and once upon a time such a thing would have been enough on its own to have people screaming blue murder (literally). Its kind of a sign of how bad things have got that people aren't screaming blue murder first and then arguing about the details second.