Protests flare after Missouri police killing of armed black manPolice released an indistinct, distant surveillance video from the gas station, edited to end just before the shooting.
In the corner of the frame, one of the people at the station can be seen raising one or both arms in what might be a shooter's stance near the police car, although the footage is too dark and grainy to establish that the person is holding a gun.
Two other videos released later by St. Louis County Police were similarly ambiguous, recorded by security cameras that appear to have only restricted views of the scene.
So, no, I don't see where you see the "a lot of decent evidence." Where is this decent evidence?
Now, in my posts I said I was not *endorsing* any of the possibilities. I didn't even say which one I find *more likely.* While I have no proof yet and reserve judgment like I said, if I were really pressed into choosing a *more likely* possibility, I'd be a bit more inclined to say that the cop reacting to a gun being pointed at him is more likely, although I'm still troubled by the following thought: we see in the video the teen raising his arm. He clearly has it pointed forward, so if he has a loaded gun in his hand, and if *then* the cop reacts, draws his own gun, points at him and fires three times, one wonders why in the hell the teen didn't fire a single shot in the meantime. You know, if this is not what happened and the gun was not planted, the suspect might have fired too. This would make powder residue, the bullet fired would have been recovered in the scene, it would make scratches or a bullet hole wherever it had ended, etc. - so, it would remove all doubt of a cover-up/planted gun. The fact that someone pointed a loaded gun at someone else who has still to draw his own gun is shot three times and doesn't shoot back not even once seems strange to me. That's why I think I'm falling for the police version being *more likely* only slightly. But I do find it more likely; the fact that I'm explaining a lot more the opposing possibility has only to do with the fact that the scenario A is straightforward and doesn't need much defense/explanation: thug points gun at cop, gets shot, case closed. The contrary hypothesis, though, invites one to try to find explanations for that raised arm, alternatives to the teen having a gun or not, etc.
Now, I've already agreed with you that extremists on both sides won't just accept the truth even if it is proven beyond any reasonable doubt to any decent person. The truth has never stopped conspiracy theorists, for example, and won't stop people with laden agendas trying to use whatever happens to further their political and societal objectives. The truth, though, would matter to decent and reasonable citizens (I do rank myself among those).
I do disagree that my position is not sane just because I exposed some scenarios (even when I made them extreme and far-fetched, as a hyperbole to make a point - I did say in that very post that I was pushing it to the limit, just to make a point).