You didn’t say ‘world’ or ‘power’ or ‘restrict’ or ‘consequences’ or ‘actions’ either, yet I used those words.
I was making a statement about why I don’t agree with you. If you want people who reply to you to only use vocabulary that you have, please state so in your comment.
My point was this: if we cannot judge without ‘enough’ information, we rely on those who control information to allow the possibility of judgement. They can simply restrict information, and you would say ‘well, we can’t judge’.
The army could start killing poor people in major cities, and official channels could present no information. Word-of-mouth could be present as scurrilous. Social media about the situation could be dissuaded (through murder of those observing) and account posting it banned. “Of course,” you would say, “we don’t have the information to hand. Maybe nobody at all has died?”
This is not acceptable. I do not accept it. I do not accept the consequences of your statement. I repudiate your statement. I disagree with you. The act of the police killing the person who called them is very rarely going to be acceptable, and I do not need the police to explain their reasoning (which they may never do with any semblance of evidence) before I am upset about it.
Being autistic, you might find it hard to police my emotions, in a very general sense. Feel free to try!