Categorize the comment on the basis of severe toxicity. If the comment is severely toxic output Yes, otherwise output No.

[Q]: This article by giving a name and a face to a survivor, who was extremely damaged by continuous rape. This article educates the population to the damage rape of a child can do and why adults in trusted positions or extreme wealth get protection to continue doing it to children. Those that did and said nothing need to rethink how they enabled this rape of this young woman to continue. Educationing people about rape of children is honoring this woman and the enormous struggles she had due to those rapes.  Unless you have more than an opinion your judgmental views on this family serves no one and certainly doesn't education anyone on what to do if they find themselves in a situation where their child is being raped by a trusted family member, family friend or an influential person in the community.
[A]: No


[Q]: So a verbal threat is a reason to shoot someone?
[A]: Yes


[Q]: Thanks for that insight--I had heard something similar from a mutual friend of mine and (trooper) Gabe Rich.  

Would it have been possible for Arvin to get his son's attention if their attention had been focused on a VPSO trying to shoot Nathaniel?  Probably not.  I think it highly likely that either Nathaniel Kangas or Mark Haglin would have been dead had VPSO Haglin been armed.  But then again, most people haven't lived in countries where the police go unarmed, as I have, so the concept of unarmed cops must just seem totally foreign.  Understandable.  My argument that guns are a necessary part of life seemed just as foreign to them.
[A]:
No