He describes how he was left uninjured after Cho's initial round of shots. Meanwhile, Waleed had been wounded but was still alive. However, when Cho later returned to the classroom to inspect for signs of life among his victims, the surviving student struggled to remain calm. He believes he would have been shot dead were it not for Waleed's "protective movement" that distracted the gunman. Cho turned and shot Waleed for a second time, killing him, before leaving the classroom.
By his own description Anonymous was unhurt and could have escaped out the door after the psycho went elsewhere. If there was any other escape route that Anonymous would have felt safer using than the door, s/he could have used that and it seems reasonable s/he would have if one existed.
Thus, with no escape route available, a momentary distraction would have no chance of saving anyone. If Anonymous didn't take an escape route when there was no shooter present and s/he had plenty of time to get out, why would s/he then try it literally under the gun?
When the Holocaust survivor jammed the door with his body, his students DID have an escape route and used it even as the hero died.
This is NOT intended to demean or diminish Waleed who was a victim every bit as much as the non-Muslim victims. I too suspect he startled or moved in pain, causing the psycho to shoot him again. That would have taken seconds. I doubt the psycho would have forgotten about Anonymous if he had really noticed him before.
So while I don't fault the victim, I DO fault whoever made up this BS that doesn't even hang together well.
The kind, gentle, sweet people on this thread who figure Anonymous just didn't want into the media circus may be right. OTOH I suspect that if the name was given as Abu Jihadi Mohammed spinning this story, even the kind, gentle, sweet people would have sprayed coffee or soft drinks out their noses.