Do you think he should’ve just drawn on the kid rather than try to dive on him? Seems in the state the shooter was in he would’ve shot him if he had pulled his weapon, not surrendered. Should he have just shot him while he was down? What was tactically the best option? And legally?
I’m not sure whether it’s a weakness or a strength that for someone on the left, the non-lethal option was what he went for. You just know any CHUD would’ve shot first asked questions later, as proven by the fash baby.
Counterpoint: we had a sitting U.S. senator call for using the military to slaughter protesters maybe a month ago, and we now have fascists actually killing people. "The optics will be bad" is kind of the same argument as "we can't nominate Bernie because Republicans will call him a socialist." The cat's already out of the bag, and it's not like these folks need reality to match their rhetoric anyways.
I suppose you're right. Fascists don't care about being discredited or accused of hypocrisy or the optics of anything, and for that matter neither do much of the liberals. We shouldn't hold ourselves to the standards they don't adhere to themselves.
It's OK to have higher standards that shitty people; we just can't import those standards onto them to predict their behavior. I.e., we can't assume they'll attempt to put reality before their political goals and propaganda.