Do you think he should’ve just drawn on the kid rather than try to dive on him? Seems in the state the shooter was in he would’ve shot him if he had pulled his weapon, not surrendered. Should he have just shot him while he was down? What was tactically the best option? And legally?
I’m not sure whether it’s a weakness or a strength that for someone on the left, the non-lethal option was what he went for. You just know any CHUD would’ve shot first asked questions later, as proven by the fash baby.
The downside of trying to shoot a particular person is you might miss and hit someone else. Or having a gunfight might be chaotic and make it hard for other people.
Cold logic says pull the gun and waste the fucker.
Regular brain says there is a chance of that going wrong and causing more harm.