A cliche in courtroom TV dramas is this sort of exchange:

Prosecutor: … And the injuries on the victim, are they consistent with the weapon in evidence?
Expert Witness: Yes, they are.
Prosecutor: I rest my case.

Here, consistency is fallaciously turned into implication. To see why, the next bit in the transcript could have been:

Defender: Are the injuries also consistent with a bite from a common house tick?
Expert Witness: (stammering) Yes, I guess so.
Defender: I rest my case.

So, any time someone is incriminated by some sort of wording about “… it is consistent with …”, alarm bells should be ringing. What else is it consistent with? Could it be a coincidence? If such questions are not immediately answered, then the accuser is covering up for ignorance.

Such is the unfortunate case of Jose Guerena. Bob Kryber, the leader of the SWAT team that killed Guerena, is reported to explain:

They found no drugs, but did discover another AR-15, plus a third rifle and two handguns. There were also several sets of body armor and a hat bearing the U.S. Border Patrol logo. None of these items is necessarily illegal or, for a Marine, even uncommon. But Krygier told his debriefer that the weapons and armor were consistent with what a cartel rip crew would possess.

Whether or not the exact wording of the claim can be attributed to Sgt. Kryber, the implication is clear. Armed with prior expectation that they were dealing with a hard-core drug criminal, every bit of evidence that was not exculpatory was incriminating. And they weren’t looking for exculpatory evidence that morning.