You keep repeating this, but the facts show you are wrong, and CANNOT know this.
You make statements like “ ...as Waleed is now dead, and the killer is right there at the live student’s body —”
You don’t know he is “right there” He could have shot Waleed from 20 feet away.
We know for a fact that the shooters inspections were NOT good enough, and any distraction by Waleed gave him less time to inspect the others.
You have stated many times that Waleeds action or non action is not connected whatsoever with “A”’s survival, yet you CANNOT know this.
We DO know that the shooter did not take the time to detect that “A” was playing dead. ANY time he spent on any other matter contributed to the survival of “A”.
You said — We DO know that the shooter did not take the time to detect that “A” was playing dead. ANY time he spent on any other matter contributed to the survival of “A”.
We can recount the facts that are presented to us and see what we come up with. We are told several things which are given as facts and then we are told the student’s “belief”.
The fact is that Waleed was intitally shot and wounded, on the first go-round. We know that the uninjured student and Waleed were laying next to each other. We know that the uninjured student was playing dead. We know that Waleed made a “movement” (student then says he has a “belief” about this movement). We know that the killer returned to the room two more times looking for signs of life.
We know — as a “result” — that since Waleed is dead, he exhibited signs of life, which resulted in the killer firing another shot into him, killing him. We also know — as a “result” — that since the uninjured student is alive, that the killer did not perceive that student to be alive, but dead.
So, when we examine those elementary facts and put it together with the “belief” of the student, we come up with these several things.
The killer upon returning to the room, looking for signs of life, sees Waleed move. He kills Waleed. The killer does not see any signs of life in the uninjured student (who is playing dead). The killer does not shoot the uninjured student. The killer leaves at some point.
The result is Waleed is dead because he moved. The uninjured student is alive because he was playing dead and the killer saw no signs of life in him.
Simple story — and we leave his “belief” to him and the counselors to sort out the typical guilt and grief that comes from being part of such a traumatic event, having someone right next to you shot dead, while that uninjured students stays alive, by playing dead. As we listen to what counselors say about these types of things, we see that people commonly seek to find “meaning” to senseless death, and this student’s “belief” is apparently his attempt.
The facts tell a more straightforward story...
Regards,
Star Traveler
[...You don’t know he is “right there” He could have shot Waleed from 20 feet away...]
Oh yes we do know that Anonymous Uninjured was “right there” because he said so in the email.
QUOTE FROM THE EMAIL
“The student that narrates the story was not shot but pretended to be dead and lay on the ground BESIDE Waleed who at that time was only injured.”