This is of course the point. NITRO mentioned previously that at least nobody ran, which is true.

UNder it all here there is obviously an underlying tension of the judgment of the shot.

IF the shooter wasn't aware of the man under the cat, the shot could be descibed as irresponsible {based on her own words, that she didn't know the backstop for the bullet or where everybody was at the time of her shot}. If the shooter DID know there was a man underneath, the same could be said, except that shooting might have been an acceptable risk {??} in order to peel the cat off, EXCEPT the shot was taken from a distance, not right where the cat was.

Thus, NITRO's words here make good sense, of course. If you can't see, get in there and find out seems to be the gist of it.

Isn't after the fact rehashing fun?? Oh, boy, how many things have we all done that after the fact seem or WERE stupid...!

The mayhem of such a situation must be taken into consideration, but I seriously wonder, seriously wonder how the whole thing would be treated were the PH to have been the fellow under the leopard, not Punky...

Just wondering...

Would BB face more scrutiny, or less?