15-12-2015, 05:32 PM
I think Bob has a conspicuous theory to Dallas cop going after the shooter ratio that doesn't need further illustration. This was Texas after all and things are done differently down there as we all know. I personally would observe common sense and realize Baker was going after what he thought was an unrestrained shooter. I don't see any need to impose any police tactic extraneous theories on what happened. That strikes me as being motivated by needing to change the scene to fit your preferred scenario rather than any objective look at the events. It's sort of Parkerish in my opinion, no offense intended. To me, trying to impose the idea that common police tactics would have sealed off the building first so therefore Baker's story must be off is an obviously concocted approach that conspicuously tries to apply this completely extraneous, theoretical condition on the Baker story in order to loosen it up, but in reality it is just that, a subjectively applied theory that has even less evidence behind it than the official story it is questioning. It may have no basis what so ever or have any validity by which it should be presented as a demand on those who analyze the scene. Me personally, I think the more Murphy needs the lunch-room encounter to be untrue the more important this building sealing becomes, but that's just my opinion of course.