Yes it is the inverse: http://www.nativlang.com/logic/logic...-contrapos.php

You were claiming my argument was that it's acceptable for A but unacceptable for not A. I was saying not A already exists so it shouldn't be unacceptable for A. That's an inverse condition of the logical statement you were trying to insert in my mouth. As I stated explcitily ... since the the anti-gunners and other SJWs are already using "emotional impact" in the courts to drive their agendas, why hamper the officer from using the same tactic against those who would disarm even someone in the performance of his duties? Your argument about "two wrongs" is a logical fallacy in itself because the argument of "emotional impact/emotional damage" has already been accepted by the courts as valid. As much as I disagree with how it has been used, his lawyer isn't inventing something new or untested.

You are the one here who is making this a case about him being a LEO. My argument holds for anyone who had a petty tyrant point a gun at their back while exercising their legally-sanctioned rights (or in this case, legally-mandated duty).