“Callling all counselors...., you’re not needed; go home...”
Correct -— ALL counselors are NOT needed - some MAY be needed.
“He moved; sounds like a flop...”
EVERY movement is a flop ? ( like your arguements ? )
“Good point; then there was no one to “save” by flopping (uhhh... “moving”)...”
NO he was looking FOR movement, and “A” is stating that Waleed saved his life by a “protective movement” which either kept “A” from moving, stopped any movement of “A” before the shooter could notice it, or distracted the shooter from “A”’s movement.
“The student is alive to talk about it.... That pretty much says it all.”
It says nothing since the point is WHY he is alive, and “A” clearly states it is because of Waleed’s actions.
You said — “NO he was looking FOR movement, and “A” is stating that Waleed saved his life by a “protective movement” which either kept “A” from moving, stopped any movement of “A” before the shooter could notice it, or distracted the shooter from “A”’s movement.
[... ]
It says nothing since the point is WHY he is alive, and “A” clearly states it is because of Waleed’s actions.”
Well, the point of the whole article is — indeed — that Waleed was “saving” the uninjured student. But, the interesting thing is that this is only a *conjecture* by the student — as the student himself admits. The student can only say it’s a “belief” — which the professor relating this *overtly says*. The professor says that this student “believes” this to be true.
But, when we examine the facts of the case — against the “belief” of the student — we see that it is not true.
It goes like the following, as was presented above —
The only eyewitness was playing dead. He couldn’t be seen by the killer as being alive, so he wouldn’t be looking at the killer (see the “one of three scenarios repoeated above). Playing dead is what kept him alive.
And then, finally, the only eyewitness says that he ony “believed” that a “move” protected him. Of all the facts of the situation that we’ve been given — this one (the “move”) is the *only one* in which the eyewitness himself says “believed”. He thus admits that he does not know if Waleed was “flopping” or distracting the killer.
The clear point which is being made — was that the uninjured student was “saved” by Waleed’s actions.
Of course, one can’t be saved if the killer was never going to kill the uninjured student in the first place. The assumption made by the uninjured student (and his “belief”) is that he would have been killed otherwise.
To that the following is clear. If the killer was going to kill the uninjured student and he saw Waleed move — then it’s bang! to Waleed (since he moved) and then bang! bang! bang! (three shots) to the uninjured student who is now dead. That’s *if* he was going to kill the uninjured student and Waleed gave his “famous flop”...
But, on the other hand, with the uninjured student playing dead so effectively (which his present breathing proves) — then the killer did not see that the uninjured student was alive — however — he saw Waleed was alive by his “now famous” flop... So, it was bang! to Waleed. Now Waleed is dead and the uninjured student is alive.
So, either the killer was going for the uninjured student or the killer was not going for the uninjured student.
(1) He was going for the uninjured student, but Waleed flopped, bang! to Waleed, then bang! bang! bang! (three times) to the uninjured student (now dead).
(2) He was not going for the uninjured student, Waleed flopped, bang! to Waleed, then perceiving the uninjured student as dead (since he was a good actor), killer leaves once again.
One way — dead “uninjured student” — the other way live “uninjured student”. And, “either way” — flops make no difference.
So, we see that the flips or flops made not difference and that the “belief” of the student is merely that. And if he needs that to assuage his guilt for being right next to the dead Waleed, while he survived, I guess that’s what counselors are for...
Regards,
Star Traveler