I'd be surprised if Waleed was waving to A to quiet him because such a wave might have actually caused the killer to look to see what Waleed was waving at.
curious ... since the entire story appears to be - “He believes he would have been shot dead were it not for Waleed’s “protective movement” that distracted the gunman.” Just what part of that dosen’t hold up ?
Known facts: Waleed wounded, killer returns to room. Reasonable (IMO) assumptions: 1) Waleed was down and, if conscious, trying to appear dead in front of killer. 2) If Waleed was not unconscious or playing dead, killer would have shot him right away and thus no connection to anybody else in the room.
Now, if Waleed is lying on the floor unconscious or feigning death (probably the smartest move in that situation) to escape killer's attention, how does he monitor A's situation to even know if A is in danger of exposing himself to killer?
So my take on what doesn't hold up is "protective movement". With the killer right there and not blocked from shooting anyone in the room, Waleed wasn't able to buy time for anyone to get away.
If Waleed was doing it to draw the killer's attention away from A, he'd have to be giving up his life to distract the killer for only seconds. If the killer had already realized A was alive, he'd have shot him too.
If you're already wounded, almost certainly in shock, and playing dead well enough to fool the killer, you're probably not in a position to analyze the situation or act strategically.
Maybe if you're SF or something, you can control the shock and pain and peek through your eyelashes enough to see who needs to be saved... Possible yes. Likely for an untrained student? I don't think so. I could be wrong.
Mimaw, almost anything is possible. My question is what's likely vs. what requires radical stretching.
I think it's likely that A, if he exists and isn't just trying to produce propaganda, saw movement and got control of himself enough to play dead in time and is now suffering from generalized survivors' guilt (unjustified usually) or a more realistic sense of gratitude whether to a hero or a fortunate accident in timing.
He could even, wrongly IMO, feel a more specific guilt that a single, real person got fatally shot because of a movement that saved himself.
I totally understand Waleed's mother seizing onto the idea of her son's heroism both because of loving him and also wanting his senseless death NOT to have been in vain. And, if any of this story is true, it wasn't in vain if someone lived because of it whether he meant to save someone else or not.
I have other questions on this situation.
However, when Cho later returned to the classroom to inspect for signs of life among his victims, ...
How long was "later"? Were Waleed and Anonymous the only people left alive in the room when the killer left? Apparently Waleed was in no condition to try to escape. Did A or any other survivors try to get out of there?
It wouldn't be smart to bolt out the door right after the killer, and a person might figure the safest place was where he had already struck and left, but time was not working in Waleed's favor or any other wounded but not yet dead victim. As time passed, did anybody try to make a break for it to get away or to get help to rescue the wounded before they joined the dead?
If staying in the room, did anybody left alive try to help Waleed or any other wounded who might not have been dead yet? If they didn't, might they feel some guilt over that and want to do something to compensate? IMO both possible and likely.
“Known facts: Waleed wounded, killer returns to room.
Wrong right off — since you speculate that “A” might not even exist, you do not know if he was wounded or killed right off. Anyone besides “A” back it up ?