Again, you dodge the question at hand.
I am an engineer, so I tend to use some words in their engineering frame of reference. The word “assert” includes as one of its definition the meaning I used.
With respect to stopping, the women claim they were never given an indication that they were supposed to stop. There was no warning before the police opened fire, which is stated in both of the articles I linked.
With respect to why there was a settlement as opposed to a full-blow lawsuit, your apparent assumption that the settlement implies wrongdoing on the women’s part is absurd. You have no evidence that they failed to comply or otherwise precipitated the incident, yet you imply that they are somehow culpable.
It’s been interesting debating with you, but the lack of factual argument is tiresome. If you wish to continue, please point to some evidence that supports your position, and keep in mind that restating your opinion is not evidence.
I have presented my evidence. If you can contradict the articles I cited with similar attributed statements or accounts, then we will have something to discuss further. If you cannot or will not do so, then further discussion is pointless and boring.
What did the cops say? They aren't allowed to say are they?
your apparent assumption that the settlement implies wrongdoing on the women’s part
No, that is your own assumption. I only posed the question. There must be a logical explanation. You claiming to be an engineer, I thought you might have a logical theory.