Comment: The guy running around pointing the gun

(See in situ)

In reply to comment: Where is the confusion? (see in situ)

The guy running around pointing the gun

is already convicted by his own actions.

While NAP is impotent to handle this fact, since he hasn't committed aggression, it is still a fact that there is no uncertainty that he is a threat (just like the drunk driver, who you ignored, wisely).

However, this has no bearing on the individual minding his own business who fits a description of a suspect or is pointed to by a supposed witness. He is not threatening anyone, and it is never self defense to attack him.

The guy with the gun is irrelevant to the general issue of arresting suspects who aren't actively engaged in aggression or threat thereof, which, after all, was the topic under dispute.