Chronologies are easy to check on that one.
Well I just did a couple of searches and seems there is some controversy there what he actually saw or didnt see and also some conflicting testimony and if he possibly did or did not know, she was there or not.
But even so, with the most charitable interpretation possible, (which in my mind is incredolous, being something of a shooter myself) this
actual trained sniper at a mere 200 meters missed a target he was aiming at and shot someonone whom he dindt see behind a partically closed door in
the head?
Thats an incredolous narrative, but eys its one o the working theories.
It seems to me you are somehow implying shooting through a closed door into a houes with women and children and you can see your target is fine?
Or am I misunderstanding you?
Also riddle me this:
If the FBI shooting was totally reasonable and justifiable, how come Randy weaver wont the Civil suit and got 3.5 million USD?
Because under US legal doctrine if its inadvertent and not deliberate they would not owe a penny of restituion is it was all legit law enforcement buisiness.
Not only that under valid US law they could have charged Randy with her murder as he was the supposed "criminal" party that was being surrounded for a reason.
Yet none of that happened.
Also keep in mind this was 1993 and back then the FBI was still held by the vast majority of Americans to be absolutely above reproach (while now we know better) and large civil awards were more rare than they are now.
So I see little need for anyone to be white knighting for this organization.