You have read the statements of the family members who witnessed the shooting. You have read that their statements were vetted by their attorney.
So..... what evidence can the ISP produce to prove to your satisfaction that these witnesses are truthful? There is none, and you know it.
Since it has always been a foregone conclusion that the deputies will claim that they feared for their lives, all those counseling that "we should wait on the facts to come out" are really just saying that they believe the deputies were justified in the shooting.
It's just a dishonest way of appearing to be open-minded, when you are not.
It's common to the CCC.
Glad you are steadfast in your decision about both the cops, and anyone that believes contrary to your view.
Sure makes it easier going through life not having to think critically, I bet.
I employed critical thinking to arrive at my decision that the two thug deputies were wrong in shooting Mr. Yantis.
How much critical thinking did you do to come to the conclusion that the ISP is going to present conclusive evidence that establishes their guilt, or innocence?
Either Mr. Yantis, or the two deputies, are due the benefit of the doubt.
I say it's him and you say it's the deputies.
The County's insurance company will agree with me.
So, you have the 'backing' of the insurance company.
Does that mean its about the money? Because you've pointed that out a lot lately.
Doesn't everyone involved merit the benefit of a doubt? Contrary to your need to paint my efforts, I've advocated that benefit to all parties. It may appear that I've focused it one the deputies, but I guess when you compare it to the lynch mob default, it would definitely seem that way.
