Quote:
Originally Posted by i'va biggen
Stolen from the police, wasn't it?
|
The initial report was that it was "reported stolen" in 2013 .... Some of the "gaps" were being filled into the "story," but for some reason it was reported that there was going to be an "investigation" into how this weapon got into the hands of the shooter.
Although some of this street information is too often incorrect factually, it was reported the weapon was stolen from the officer's residence and the officer was "disciplined" ..... if this weapon was "issued" to the officer by the department, then the weapon is the property of the department and the "discipline" might be for being "careless" or "negligent" with departmental property, e.g. leaving the weapon "unsecured" and/or "alone at home.
The general public may never find out the actual facts surrounding the disappearance of the weapon, but there was mention of a Federal investigation into the background of the shooter, which probably will include how this shooter got his grimmies on this service/duty weapon.
the impression that audio recording was illegal and when I pressed you to correct. You would not. You argued the straw man argument of me not being an expert when clearly what I was saying was true. You were trying to make it seem if what I was saying was not true by clouding the fact that I was not an expert....Jesus LL, you were making a fool of yourself then as now. 
