I figure that people are going to make up stories that fit their preferred conclusion when they don't have all the facts. And that is exactly what you are doing here. There is nothing in the disinterested reporting or the video that supports your conclusion, yet here you are concluding that the police did nothing wrong.Of course it leads you to think that - because that is what you wish to do: exonerate the police regardless of the circumstances.
No. What I do is figure people are going to give the details that benefit them and ignore the ones that harm their position.
We hear nothing about what happened between the police being called and what happened in the parking lot. Thus I conclude it's bad for them.
You're missing my point. I'm saying that when someone telling a story leaves out an important part of it you should suspect that part is bad for them. I know we don't have all the facts, it's possible additional facts will change my mind. Given what we have, though: The police behaved as one would expect for a felony stop. They aren't talking about what happened between the store and the parking lot. This makes me suspect a felony in that time.