The topic is not Egwene, it is the incongruence of your expressed positions.

Unarmed women ARE noncombatants. Regardless of their allegiance. "Children" brandishing guns are legitimate targets until or unless you know for certain the guns are not guns.

Because, as I said, they are NOT military personnel and should NOT be trained as such. The vast majority of their jobs have nothing to do with combat and most (male) officers never discharge their firearms in decades on the job. The problem is not that civilian police officers on American streets are not being trained to storm insurgent bases, but that American citizens act in such a manner as to place cops in fear of their lives.
What is your point? Don't you realize that you just shot down the complaint about racism? You admitted that they had no way of knowing the gun was fake or that it was a kid playing around, which is a pretty good defense of their actions.
Because that information is irrelevant. No professional dispatcher would bother relaying it, because there is no upside to doing so. Best case scenario, it has the cops coming in casually and it turns out it IS a kid and the gun IS fake and nothing happens (or maybe a racial bias claim gets filed for shits and giggles because they bothered an innocent little black child who was just playing harmlessly, but that's pretty much par for the course). Worst case scenario, they go in casually, expecting a kid playing with a gun, and it's not, and they get shot. The scale of preference for all police personnel, who know and work with the responding officers is
1. No one gets shot
2. Bad guys get shot
3. Innocent person gets shot
4. Officer gets shot
It is easy to sit in front of a keyboard and demand that the cops risk #4 to achieve #1, but when you are the person driving up to an unknwon scene, or the person responsible for telling your coworkers to check out an incident, #4 is your nightmare scenario, and you are more than willing to risk #3 to avoid it.

In some departments, a dispatcher might actually face discipline for downplaying potential danger. Telling the cops "It's probably fake" and then having them get shot is not a good way to keep your job. In other departments, especially in large cities, the consoles are too busy to give irrelevant information. Since it is not known for certain that the gun is fake, the officers MUST, for their own safety and that of the general public, treat it as potentially real (because the guy who shoots a cop is almost certain to have few to no qualms about shooting anyone else).

Not in the least. There are numerous legal and moral standards absolutely forbidding the killing of disarmed combatants. Numerous German officers went on trial at Nuremberg for just that crime. Egwene was not only the one who killed them, she was the one who disarmed them, so she has not even the excuse of ignorance or reasonable doubt as to their status. In fact, if you don't know for sure, you ARE allowed to shoot, but Egwene knew as she was the one who personally disarmed them. I have no objections to her killing armed soldiers or White Tower personnel aboard the to'raken she shot down, nor would I have any objections to her killing complete suld'dam or unleashed damane, or targeting complete sul'dam specifically because it also kills the damane. But Egwene deliberately opened the collars, rendered the sul'dam helpless, and assumed moral responsibility for their welfare as prisoners of war and then burned them alive.

You have no business commenting on ANYTHING about warfare if you cannot understand these basic principles. What's more, these principles are in place in the real world, where soldiers lack Egwene's options when it comes to refraining from killing, which is exactly why the Tower is so confident in taking the Second Oath. As early as book three, a case was made for NOT using lethal force with the One Power, specifically because there ARE other options, as Nynaeve demonstrated with the Gray Man who shot at them. Those non-lethal methods should have come more easily to Egwene, who is better with Air than with Fire, but she deliberately chose the less natural and less reflexive method to kill women she knew to be incapble of resistance. If bonding a man without permission is just as bad as rape, because he can't channel, than what is setting a woman on fire, when she cannot channel?

That you can read 11 books of the Wheel of Time by Robert Jordan and not understand that whatever the difference between appearances and reality, people act on the appearance, when they have no way of knowing the reality, says everything anyone need to know about your judgment and comprehension.
Maybe YOU do, because in EVERY one of those TV shows, there are police antagonists! Whether corrupt or racist or trigger happy colleagues or corrupt or lazy or obstructive superiors, cops characters spend almost as much time fighting their own department as they do criminals.
No, the point is that EVERY show and movie has antagonistic cops, whether or not they have hero cops. There are many movies with bad cops or antagonistic cops or incompetent cops and no good cops in the movie. There are almost NO movies with good cops and no bad cops. If EVERY movie with black people had at least one cowardly, selfish, stupid or violent black character, and not every movie with black roles had a good character, we would rightly say that there is a racial problem with the depiction of black people. That is what is going on with cops.
Aaaand? How are you contesting my assertion that the military is treated like shit? My point is that both sides of the political spectrum agree that they are treated like shit. This is not an issue for debate.
As is universally the place with criticism of the police from the left. They have no problem with black kids being shot when it's not a white cop or homeowner doing the shooting, which was the point I was making about the movie in my original post. The "good" characters in the movie were fine with young black people being assaulted or pressured into intoxication, addiction, premature sexual relationships and parenthood, as long as it is other young black people doing all that to them. But they lose their shit and start marching and physically confronting police officers when one of them deliberately provokes cops during a traffic stop.
That is specifically what the man who started it said! I don't know if you have ever been to an American sporting event, but a public address announcement is always made saying "To honor {America/our country/our flag/our servicemen} please stand and remove your hats for the national anthem." This has been the practice for a long time before the kneel-downs. In the context in which they occurred, they cannot be seen as anything other than specifically defying the country and everything else the practice of standing is explicitly stated to be honoring. If you refuse to rise when a judge enters his courtroom, you can be kicked out, fined or imprisoned, no matter what cause you are protesting.
And a multi-millionaire celebrity has many platforms and fora from which to make that statement, without doing so in a way that offends the customers and patrons who enable him to be a multi-millionaire at such a young age with no other demonstrated skills. To persist in his offensive methods of making that statement cannot be anything other than disregard and contempt for that same public who made him what he is.

By the rules of the SJWs and so-called progressives, offense is determined by the offended party. Period. If a minority teases out some obscure alternate meaning in your words that he declares offensive, the onus is on you to apologize

Because they are not the same. In the first place, the so-called Confederate flag is objectively not a symbol of racism. If you can show a picture of the ACTUAL Confederate Flag at the rally that might be worth talking about. The national flag of the Confederate States of America is much like the US flag in design, with three horizontal bars, two red & one white, with a circle of white stars on blue field in the upper left corner. The so-called Confederate Flag, featuring white stars on a blue St Andrew's cross, is one of a variety of flags carried by the Confederate armed forces. It is specifically a symbol of resistance to the Federal government and of pride in the military valor displayed by the Confederate army, specifically and apart from the civil institutions of that nation-state, which are universally agreed to have been wrong and offensive.

Anyway, with yet another instance of your ignorance out of the way, you still have not demonstrated that they WERE, in fact, racist. And even if they were, they still have the right to speech IN THAT VENUE. If they were punished for expressing such sentiments using a workplace platform, I would not object, nor would I object to Kaepernick or other athletes making the exact same sort of statement on the exact same issue elsewhere. Note that I am not objecting to the display of the movie in the original post, merely the substance of its content, on grounds of internal consistency.

The Charlottesville Unite the Right protestors had a permit to be there. They had the legal right to be there. The NFL and its teams, as the employers and parties responsible for the venue in which the anthem protests occurred, had every right to punish the players for their actions and suppress the protests. The NFL can and does punish conduct not strictly related to football in the stadiums all the time. Players have contracts that actually regulate their activities away from the field, and if he had such a contract, the team would have been in the right to punish a player who made a protest in violation of it.

You are just randomly comparing incidents that fall under a general category of "vaguely involving racism, maybe" and try to act as if they are all the same. You are picking sides exclusively based on race, with no expressed principles and some rather horrible implied positions against free speech. The anthem protests are NOT an issue of free speech, because the protestors were not in a position to be free to speak. Freedom of speech means the government cannot outlaw speech. It does not mean that private individuals may not take action in response to expressed ideas. A point the left has absolutely no problem embracing when an entertainer is fired or de-platformed for expressing opinions with which they disagree.

It has nothing to do with whether or not the shooting was justified. It makes the cop a bad person, if true. It does not make his actions wrong.

Your inability to understand the difference between a person's character and the right or wrong of a particular act, much less the irrelevance of the former to the latter, explains a lot about your apparently random and irrational positions.

A principled adherence to a moral viewpoint.