4 ms·

Nonsense! We are releasing a photo of the handgun that was in Manuel Esteban Paez Teran’s possession when a Georgia State Patrol trooper was shot on January 18

Nonsense! We are releasing a photo of the handgun that was in Manuel Esteban Paez Teran’s possession when a Georgia State Patrol trooper was shot on January 18 at the site of the future Atlanta Public Safety Training Center. The handgun is described as a Smith & Wesson M&P Shield 9mm. Forensic ballistic analysis has confirmed that the projectile recovered from the trooper’s wound matches Teran’s handgun. Other preliminary information released in this case is consistent with the investigation so far. https://gbi.georgia.gov/press-releases/2023-04-14/gbi-investigates-officer-involved-shooting-following-multi-agency https://gbi.georgia.gov/press-releases/2023-04-14/gbi-invest...

DangitBobby 3y ago
So they have a photo of a gun that was "in his possession" but not of him actually possessing or welding it, and also testimony about an autopsy where the lack of gunpowder on his hands indicates he didn't shoot it. Truly damning evidence, next we will see a picture of the car registered in his name that he could have used to run over puppies and children.
- mcpackieh 3y ago
  They have records of him buying the gun. It was in his possession.
  - DangitBobby 3y ago
    Him having a gun is not evidence of him using one.
    - mcpackieh 3y ago
      That is correct, records of him buying the gun are not evidence of him using it. I was responding to this part of your comment "So they have a photo of a gun that was "in his possession" but not of him actually _possessing_ [...] Truly damning evidence" There's ample evidence that he possessed the gun, we don't need a photograph of literally everything to reasonably conclude things. The bullet they found in a cop's stomach matching the gun he owned is evidence that he used it, albeit not unimpeachable proof because matching bullets to guns is a matter you can reasonably question. Nevertheless, I think the sum of the evidence thus-far presented supports the narrative that he shot a cop then the cops turned him into swiss cheese, possibly with the man trying in vane to surrender while that was happening.
    - NovemberWhiskey 3y ago
      OK, he owned a gun, that was found with him, at the time of his death, and his hands were found to have primer residue. Circumstantial evidence is evidence.

DangitBobby 3y ago

So they have a photo of a gun that was "in his possession" but not of him actually possessing or welding it, and also testimony about an autopsy where the lack of gunpowder on his hands indicates he didn't shoot it. Truly damning evidence, next we will see a picture of the car registered in his name that he could have used to run over puppies and children.

mcpackieh 3y ago
They have records of him buying the gun. It was in his possession.
- DangitBobby 3y ago
  Him having a gun is not evidence of him using one.
  - mcpackieh 3y ago
    That is correct, records of him buying the gun are not evidence of him using it. I was responding to this part of your comment "So they have a photo of a gun that was "in his possession" but not of him actually _possessing_ [...] Truly damning evidence" There's ample evidence that he possessed the gun, we don't need a photograph of literally everything to reasonably conclude things. The bullet they found in a cop's stomach matching the gun he owned is evidence that he used it, albeit not unimpeachable proof because matching bullets to guns is a matter you can reasonably question. Nevertheless, I think the sum of the evidence thus-far presented supports the narrative that he shot a cop then the cops turned him into swiss cheese, possibly with the man trying in vane to surrender while that was happening.
  - NovemberWhiskey 3y ago
    OK, he owned a gun, that was found with him, at the time of his death, and his hands were found to have primer residue. Circumstantial evidence is evidence.