I still can't wrap my head around why the thug that hammered Mr. Pelosi wasn't shot on the spot.

[Bernardo de La Paz]

38. If you like, I'd like to know what the "error" is. I do make them from time to time

I prefer to be corrected when I make errors or hear the other side if they thought I made an error. Perhaps I'm wrong about details of wellness checks or got the number of cameras wrong, but it is probably some other detail you have caught that I'm not thinking of.

You are so much more cogent when you avoid making three word posts. I always look forward to your byline because you are a thoughtful, careful, accomplished writer. That's why I was astounded by your three word post, which gave no room for reason.

As to guessing what another person is thinking, that is one of the tests of consciousness that researchers apply to studies of dogs and dolphins. Everybody does it.

However, I hope it is clear and I will state that I did not tell you what you were thinking in my reply to you. As to guessing what officers and perps might be thinking, speculation like that is performing thought experiments and exploring scenarios to figure out what aspects of an event may have been crucial.

We are agreed 100% that

The OP expressed a problem in understanding why the police, upon entering, did not shoot the thug. It was, as everyone with even the slightest degree of understand knows, because they immediately saw him assaulting Mr. Pelosi, and tackled and restrained him. That was, of course, the proper thing to do.

It is so obvious that I did not think it required a rational explanation. You might have, but I didn't. Thus, we view things differently, don't we?

I do not understand how you think we see things differently on the timing of the police action. As to being explicit, well yes as a programmer I do like explicitness for clarity and lack of ambiguity. In this case, the OP's question indicated the need that an explicit explanation would help them. Several posters did that.

I'm guessing (now that I've read this post of yours) that given you felt no explicit explanation was needed, perhaps you were thinking your reply was sardonic. If so, I missed that. My error if that was the case. I could easily be wrong about that too. But three words typed do not carry the body language, inflections of voice and tonality that saying them in person would convey. Limited bandwidth in 13 letters. Note that in couple's therapy, the statement you quote can be couched with conditionals and posed in a way that encourages feedback which makes things better, as in "I thought you were thinking ..." or "It sure seemed to me your actions on Thursday indicated you were thinking such and such."

So, thank you for clarifying your meaning of your three words. I wrote carefully to bring up the topic of prejudice but not to tar you with it, since your three word post was so surprising to me.

Again:

I prefer when criminals are caught, their background -- including potential associates -- investigated, a trial, conviction, and incarceration. Others might ponder why there wasn't a shooting. I don't.

... 100% agreement. I have written similar sentiments in other contexts, such as hoping tRump gets indicted, convicted, and jailed before he dies a natural death (unless he gets the death penalty for treason).