I'm not, you are twisting what I said.
1. I said I haven't seen the evidence, has anyone else?
and
2. If the gun is not entered into evidence there is no gun.
The first is a very valid question. The second is a fact. If you are claiming that a man aimed a gun at you and therefore you shot him, and that is the claim that is plastered all over the every account of this story, then the gun is evidence that the claim is true.
Never once have I said if I don't see it it doesn't exist. I have asked you and anyone else reading this thread to provide the evidence. You said you had the evidence and you didn't.
1. I said I haven't seen the evidence, has anyone else?
and
2. If the gun is not entered into evidence there is no gun.
The first is a very valid question. The second is a fact. If you are claiming that a man aimed a gun at you and therefore you shot him, and that is the claim that is plastered all over the every account of this story, then the gun is evidence that the claim is true.
Never once have I said if I don't see it it doesn't exist. I have asked you and anyone else reading this thread to provide the evidence. You said you had the evidence and you didn't.
So I guess we wait and see if this is ever released. Until then, would you agree it would be prudent to not make assumptions the man WASN'T armed unless some other evidence comes out which discredits the FBI agents' version of events?
Question: Do you think the past and relevant behavior, especially the social media post asking if the FBI is still surveilling him so he can meet them with a gun is of ANY importance? Does it give any credence that MAYBE he truly was armed or is it hogwash?