We also agree that you are a madman!
But let us investigate our agreement.
If you agree that the other two officers did nothing wrong, then you agree that her shooting was, in fact, justified, tragic though it may be.
Further, it would indicate that my assessment that the original officer’s actions are the only item at issue in this matter is correct, and I do believe that his actions are indeed questionable, though not where the shooting is concerned.
So, in summary, our difference lies in the fact you insist upon, ah, mass character assassination of the officer before any official investigation results are revealed, and my insisting that his side of the story should be obtained prior to rendering judgment, and further awaiting the statements of the Rangers on this.
I would also just like to point out that she sought him out, he did not seek her out. However, if he is found to have been involved in any wrong doing, then throw the book at his head I say.
I wouldn't have licked the boots of the Gestapo or the NKVD, either.
If you agree that the other two officers did nothing wrong, then you agree that her shooting was, in fact, justified, tragic though it may be.
Did you start drinking early today? Sounds like you've got a fifth of booze on board. That's drunk logic.