You are missing or ignoring the minor detail that he drove between states armed, which a stated intent, before all of this happened. Just that detail says that he got involved intentionally.

I haven’t said anything about any other shooters, except that they are also a problem. And also to express some skepticism at the speculation that any other shooter was from the protest. But that is all I have said about the subject. I agree that finding the other shooter, and here I will let my skepticism show if there is one, should be a priority.

I am also willing to say that I am somewhat biased by viewing the various video of the incident. Because of this, I would make a horrible juror. I am unable to presume innocence in this specific case. I have seen and read too much on both sides. While I try to keep an open mind unless there is some significant change in the narrative about what happened that night, I can’t see my opinion changing much.

My issue with the way you are approaching this is that you are excusing the final act, shooting people, based on the events of a short period when the entire event was many hours long and did show that he was planning to shoot people. So I feel like you are cherry-picking the bits of narrative that fit the story you want to tell. I try to view the event as a whole, at least, the publicly released timeline of the event. There may be parts we don’t know that changes my opinion, but right now, my view is of someone who planned for the likelihood that he would shoot people. Then he went out and shot people. That is the bottom line, details may change in the middle, but the beginning and end of the story of this event don’t. He decided to leave his home in one state with a rifle, wanting to shoot people. Some things happened; he shot people what things happened to make a difference to the people who lived them and to the legal details. But do they change the narrative? Not much from where I sit.