Quote:



Which policy do you think is 'bad' ?
The policy of upholstering his gun ?
The policy of carrying it ?
The policy of the speed he walked/ran to the door ?
The policy of aiming the gun ?

Or the policy of shooting and killing a person,
who showed no threat/physical harm,
  to him or those around him ?

Which policy do you think is 'bad' ?
The policy of upholstering his gun ?
No.

The policy of carrying it ?
No.  I think police should carry.

The policy of the speed he walked/ran to the door ?
No.  This is most likely not in policy.

The policy of aiming the gun ?
No.

Or the policy of shooting and killing a person,
who showed no threat/physical harm,
 to him or those around him ?

 Yes.  I said that already multiple times.

 But since I am not "lock-step" complaining about it, but debate the obvious inaccuracies of certain interpretations by those using zero evidence it can only mean I disagree with everything and not only the part I said I think is inaccurate and only that part with the exclusion of all other parts.

 As I said - because I wonder if a specific order was given people here want to act like I said the action was appropriate - even though 163 days prior I stated clearly I think there is poor implementation of policy that can lead to these events.  

 Hypersensitivity to any comment outside of absolute agreement leads to nonsense like this.

Byrd: “I could not fully see her hands or what was in the backpack or what the intentions are.”

So he fired?

Shouldn’t the Secret Servcie Officers on the line outside The White House that night when protestors were pushing at the fence have just opened up on them all because they “could not fully see their hands or what was in the backpack or what the intentions are.” ?

Perhaps if your numerous, arguments/posts/questions, didn’t sound a whole lot like,
      Defending, this person’s actions.
Following posts would be in a different tone.


 Asking if you would jump through a window with guns pointing at you is not saying the action is correct.  You may not hear that but what my words say is that a human that jumps through a window with guns pointing at them runs a higher risk of being shot than one's who don't.

 Stating that a gun was drawn prior to her entry in a window is fact.  When people say guns were not visible they are wrong, multiple guns were visible, even from her line of sight.

 You might think that means I am saying the action was correct - but what my words say is that multiple guns were visible prior to her being shot.  My evidence is two videos but if people watch them they can't go around saying "probably" this and "probably" that.


 When I say maybe they were told to hold the line I do not mean that the action was correct.  You may hear that, but my actual words say that a possibility exists that they were instructed to do this.  People can say this is not true and ask for "proof" even though they offer zero "proof" themselves and won't even watch the videos.


 When I say if Babbitt was a guy crawling through that window with a bomb strapped to his chest, I do not mean to say I think the action is correct.  You may hear that but my words indicate otherwise.  I mean that the mechanical actions that Oldnslow questions without evidence, while refusing to look at them himself, are from a technical aspect a textbook action.  


"Did you read/hear/see a copy of a Capital/Federal police ‘policy’, that stated, perimeters for the order of a,
‘ Hold The Line ‘ policy ?

 Yes.


Did you give your impute on, keep/remove/modify a
‘ Hold The Line ‘ policy ?

 No.


Did you recommend a, removal, (if one existed) or a keep the same/increase,
of the, ‘ Hold The Line ‘ Policy ?"

 No.