When a video shows nobody coming to the aid of a fallen cop, then by definition “all” of those around are “stand[ing] by and doing nothing.” Whirlibird very specifically clarified that in his follow up response when he mentioned, “Those brave souls who took down the shooter down south recently, cuffing him despite his being armed and calling for help on the officers radio are the exception nowadays.” He clearly acknowledged exceptions. Why then are you taking it personally and holding on to the notion of “all” being universally inclusive, as opposed to situationally accurate in too many cases?
This past Sunday, I heard a talk in which the speaker mentioned the concept of listening with one’s heart, not just one’s head. We can pick out words and attribute our own meaning to them – and perhaps be technically correct. But we can also listen with our hearts, trying in some way to understand what’s behind the words, and sometimes those words then take on an entirely different meaning. Personally, I understand why the Save a Warrior program chooses to bring in LE and other first responders, and not just limit their incredible program to military vets only. If one hasn’t been there personally, one cannot truly understand, regardless of how many such people they’ve known, talked with, interviewed, treated, etc. But they can at least understand that they don’t understand….
"Ye hear of wars in far countries, and you say that there will soon be great wars in far countries, but ye know not the hearts of men in your own land."