[Endorphin Rush]

Gentlemen,

I read a few posts in this thread that mention that the police had to "protect themselves", as well as the term "self defense". Please consider this outlook: it is possible that the police did not respond to that school on that day to "protect themselves" or even "defend themselves". Consider, instead, that they responded to that school to save young, innocent lives other than their own. From what you ask??? Could it have been a scenario that may have turned into our nations next active shooter incident. I would bet that the thought had crossed the minds of those responding officers.

Put yourselves in the shoes that those officers wore on that day. The BEST case scenario, had they not engaged this armed young man, is that they could have been shot. And the ABSOLUTE WORST thing that could have occurred is that he might have escaped with that firearm and begun to engage innocent school children.

Those officers were not in their own homes defending their lives. They were in a school and potentially defending the lives of every innocent child that was present on that day.

If it worries anyone that the youthful, but still armed, male might have been shot in the back of the head as he turned away from the police, then consider this. Is it possible that, when he turned away, he no longer intended to engage armed police officers, but instead made a decision to seek softer, unarmed targets (students)??? What do you believe those officers would have thought had he had that chance to do so?

I do not bear a calloused heart. It is tragic that any person so young should have to die for any reason. But, it is exponentially more tragic to allow the death of innocent children in an attempt to save one who displays malice towards all.