[Natsu]

I'm basing my opinions on those statements made in open court that were subjected to cross-examination, not random social media nonsense, which is pretty much all there was a year ago when you formed this opinion.

The police said the unspent round did not match Kyle's weapon. It does match the ammo in the Glock.

If you have video evidence of another Glock (EDIT: or any other gun using the same ammo) being racked at the scene, please show it. There were claims previously that it came from Kyle's rifle, but it was not a match and this is attested to by the prosecution's own police witness.

I was not able to locate any other claims for where the unspent round came from after several searches. This makes me wonder if you can actually produce the claimed video evidence of another source of the same ammo.

[pwdisswordfish8]

> a year ago when you formed this opinion

This is a nonsense sentence. It's not even clear what you're even trying to say here, but it's certain that whatever it is you are making even more bad assumptions about things that you don't actually know to be true.

> please show it [...] I was not able to locate any other claims for where the unspent round came from

It's like you ignored the entire message and homed in on the sweet temptation to muse further about the events of the night of the shooting itself, as if this were exactly the sort of trial-by-Reddit thread that I said I would not take part in here.

After the response you just received, do you really expect that the person who wrote it would meet your challenge, which would require an about-face, throwing everything just said out the window, and willingly contributing to derailing the discussion from the topic at hand?

In other words: no, and furthermore, since you're all over this thread trying to turn it into exactly what it shouldn't be: please stop.

[Natsu]

Well, if you don't want to engage in that, don't. Don't claim to have video evidence in your back pocket and then not show it to anyone because you want to shut down other people's discussions. Don't seize on part of my comment and then come back like it's unfair when it happens to you.

This isn't trial by Reddit, this is discussion of the evidence that has been investigated by professional investigators and presented as evidence in open court. The only thing I mentioned that wasn't raised and cross-examined in a court of law was the statement on ABC, by the same person who had said something different under oath just before.

You're the one alluding to some mystery video you won't describe.

[pwdisswordfish8]

> this is discussion of the evidence

You (and by now, others, too) are derailing the thread from the topic at hand by trying to make it one, but no, that's not what this is.

this thread is about the meta issues of epistemology in the age of social media echo chambers and the contributions of traditional media to it, and we're best served by staying on that topic

There is no shortage of places to discuss the night of the Kenosha shooting. This is not one of them.