The protestor had a gun on him. The model and serial number matched that of a gun he purchased in 2020. The round recovered from the state trooper’s abdomen matched that gun.
> The round recovered from the state trooper’s abdomen matched that gun.
Firearms forensics is, like most criminal forensics, junk science[1]: even when the basic scientific reality is aligned any particular technique, it's heavily laundered through interpretation and not subject to rigorous statistical analysis.
(In particular, bullet analysis is complete nonsense. Prior to 2005 the standard technique was lead-composition analysis, which (1) assumed that all of the suspect's bullets were the same, and (2) assumed that similarly-manufactured bullets would have similar compositions. Neither is true, which is why the Federal government no longer uses it as evidence. It's unclear whether the same is true for Georgia and the GBI.)
Edit: A more specific reference for ballistic analysis[2], which appears to be what the GBI used here.
From other answers in this thread you'd think that the police just shot and killed an innocent protester... how can anyone think that if there's an injured trooper?
Okay? Georgia bureau of investigation isn’t exactly a neutral third party unfortunately, also, again, they can lie and omit without consequences. I’m pointing out that due to the existing corruption baked into the justice system and police force, it’s extremely difficult to buy anything said no matter how many fancy labels is put into it.
So what do you think happened? Did the Atlanta police place the gun at the scene and hope that the GBI would lie about the forensics results? Did they lie about the purchase records too? Did they shoot one of their own to justify murder? If they wanted to kill an activist, they could just say he was pointing a gun at them. No need to almost kill a state trooper to cover it up.
I never posited any alternatives, except to say that you cannot trust the testimony of obviously corrupt institutions. There are literally infinite amount of untruths they could’ve lied about and an infinite number of nuances left out in testimony. You cannot rely on anything except that someone is dead.
You’re missing my point, which is that you cannot rely on the testimony of corrupt individuals who can lie under oath, in the court of law, without consequence. This means you only have a few facts, and any other presented facts by corrupt institutions are suspect by default.
