So according to Paul’s logic a police officer should never pull his weapon when confronting an armed robber. Oops, alleged armed robber.
I guess he’s supposed to just convince him to stop robbing the store and how he, the officer, is protecting his rights to due process.
Or maybe he should apologize for coming into the store while the theif was holding a gun on the store owner. I guess if he shoots the store owner it will be because the theif was just ticked off the cop was actually in the store.
You can't follow RP's logic, so why pretend you can?
Your pathetic hypothesis is flawed beyond hope.