You can denigrate the opinions, or the people who express the opinions contrary to your own, Peter K (Fionn), as forcefully and dramatically as you'd like, but it goes nowhere to increase the persuasiveness of your own opinion. Tying the job performance of two guys serving in their professional capacity to ambiguous assertions of 9/11 hysteria four years ago seems to be logically, well, shall we say, weak.

In my humble opinion, *IF* the guy said he had a bomb and ran, he earned the shot, rationally or irrationally. *If* he reached into his peculiar front-pack with guns drawn on him, he may have earned the shot on that basis.

Of course, newspaper facts are frequently unreliable.