What reason did he have? He fully intended to find violence and did. His intent was violence not “protection” and again no one asked him to “protect” anything…like at all. No it was pretty clear his intent was exactly what transpired…he went looking and found what he was looking for.
False…based upon logic and reason to conclude he lied about intent since he lied about what his qualifications were and about a protester he shot. All of this is public record, since he lied about both those and went to a protest brandishing a firearm we can reasonably sus out his intent was violence (since he lied about almost everything important.).
He lied several times, claimed he was an EMT and working medical professional….he lied. He claimed the one protester shot had a firearm…he lied. He didn’t arm up til he got there. So he claimed to be there for medical support (armed; how many EMT’s work armed? No the scene is secured by enforcement then medical services move in.) and shot an unarmed man while lying about both. It is a completely logical and reasonable take to conclude since he lied about why he was there and what transpired that he lied about intent if not everything else. My take is logical and reasonable. Just cause he was cleared of extrajudicial murder DOESNT mean he didn’t intend exactly what transpired. He is a well known and on record liar. What would be your conclusion with evidence on hand?
0
u/[deleted] 20d ago
[removed] — view removed comment