You just don't get it farronwolf.Most people here agree the threat potential was present.At a minimum because they ordered everyone to the ground while implying they had weapons.Sure there are tons of variables for someone who was there. But at the very least the ingredients for confrontation were there.I can play your game too.Maybe the guy who didnt get down had bad knees or bad back and couldn't get down on the ground. We can go on and on with assumptions. The point of the whole thread was obvious in title. By implication with what information was provided in the article, there was a clear and present danger. Your argument is like a police officer ordering a suspect to raise hands but they go for their pocket. In your reasoning the officer must wait until a gun is produced and fired before the officer could legally act.After all the officer is "just" assuming the guy has a weapon.We all know that such acts would be a justification for the officer to shoot.Your argument doesnt hold water.