Umbrella Man: Suspicious

[John Iacoletti]

Yet another “Richard Smith” lie. .38s do not “literally smoke”.

[John Iacoletti]

Like clown-boy knows what soft drink was “Oswald’s choice”.

[Bill Chapman]

Mr Chapman usurps all and claims the original formulation of the word ambush re Nov 22 
Actually...Officer Tippit was not ambushed per se. No one was hiding behind a tree or bush.
The policeman [according to Ms Markham] was in full view of his assailant.
Further...according to her testimony....Officer Tippit probably knew his attacker.
We can most likely get more word nourishment from a pencil eraser.

Ambush = Surprise attack

Officer Tippit was not ambushed per se. No one was hiding behind a tree or bush.
_He was ambushed per revolver. And Oswald was hiding behind his guile.

The policeman [according to Ms Markham] was in full view of his assailant.
_ That's usually how surprise-attacks work

Further...according to her testimony....Officer Tippit probably knew his attacker.
_ You wouldn't just happen to be trying to turn Markham's 'neighbourly cop' thang into something sinister, now would you?

Finally, Tippit was indeed ambushed: He moved into a position that left him with, realistically, no real cover at all. IOW he wasn't expecting an attack. Pretty sure he would be surprised at what ensued.

[Bill Chapman]

Like clown-boy knows what soft drink was “Oswald’s choice”.

Where did you come up with RC Cola
I saw no references to that re Oswald.
But plenty to Oswald and Dr P.

[Richard Smith]

With some police shootings of minorities, it's the opposite. An invisible "gun" is "seen" in the hand of the compliant "suspect" by a racist officer, then after "appropriate measures" (learned in so-called "training"), the now-dead suspect's "gun" is no longer seen.

I'm not seeing the relevance to the Tippit situation.  Oswald was white.  The only policeman at the scene was killed by him.  The shooter obviously had a gun.  In the course of human history, there have been such situations as you describe, but so what in this context?  Point being that if a witness hears a gunshot and immediately looks in the direction of the shooting to see one man with a gun next to the victim it's accurate to say that they witnessed the shooting.  There was no one else at the Tippit shooting with a gun.  No one other than the person with the gun could have committed the act.  Multiple witnesses identified Oswald as the "shooter" via his possession of the gun at the scene of the shooting.   Marham saw him commit the act.  Only a pedantic CT contrarian would split hairs about characterizing these witnesses as seeing Oswald literally pull the trigger.    No one saw John Wilkes Booth pull the trigger to kill Lincoln.  They heard the gun shot, looked in that direction, and saw Booth with the gun.  No one in their right mind would ever suggest there is doubt that these witnesses had seen the shooter.

[John Iacoletti]

Where did you come up with RC Cola
I saw no references to that re Oswald.
But plenty to Oswald and Dr P.

The point flew way over your head. As usual.

[John Iacoletti]

So “Richard” lies about the evidence three times in a row and then declares that nobody “in their right mind” would disagree with his lies.

And that’s supposed to make them true.

[Jerry Freeman]

Finally, Tippit was indeed ambushed: He moved into a position that left him with, realistically, no real cover at all. IOW he wasn't expecting an attack. Pretty sure he would be surprised at what ensued.

An ambush is where someone never even sees their attacker.
Otherwise by your definition...every shooting is an ambush.
Put that one in your bong