I'm not sure who or what you're asking, but my response isIf police arrive to shooting and fires and dead victims.. and 'seems' is all they've got.. one might hope that might be enough to at least be wary of it and perhaps advise whoever would have an interest in knowing? In the quoted post above, it seems you are speaking of 'heading to *his* residence', accounting for *his* three cars, and how his cars were accounted for at *his* house. I haven't suggested that police should've known WHO the suspect was.. but they had a LIVE victim telling them he'd been shot at by a guy in a police vehicle. Why not run with *that*? imo. It's not like they had to figure out the 'who' at that point, and where he lived and how many replicas he owned and whether or not they were all accounted for before warning other police and public?
1. We don't know precisely what words were spoken by whom when, we only have a vague account based on a reconstruction that tries to tie together loose threads to make a coherent narrative for armchair readers
2. We have the advantage of hindsight
3. We have the luxury of focussing on tiny details and discussing them for hours, unlike police who were dealing with very large amounts of information coming at them from all sides, in a state of high emergency as other people's and their own lives were threatened, out there in the dark.
If you want to insist that RCMP officers on the job should have had certain thoughts, drawn certain conclusions , okay. For me, that's a level of back seat driving I don't feel confident about.