Samvega

It's Scottish English. Don't call a Scottish person English, they might take offence.

Would you support that hotel banning all Palestinians because they are governed by an internationally-recognized terrorist organisation?

When's the last time Palestinians got to vote for who they are governed by?

you would see I would like to wait until there is actual information about the shooting

They never release information.
They keep shooting people.
You keep calling everyone else a 'stupid mother fucker' while their family cries.
Your life adds up to being someone who defended systems of human authorities over human lives. This is not something anyone misses.

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!

Punishing unknown people for the actions of their government?

Yes, I agree, killing innocent people because of the country they are in is terrible.
So terrible that the act of limiting the leisure options of the people who support those actions becomes morally acceptable, because shaming bad behaviour is actually a good thing to do.

So, why aren’t we allowed to wait until there is actual information

I don't want a world where those in power restrict all information in order to never face the consequences of their actions.

Leaders can unite people behind doing things

It seems to me that people want to make the world worse, because that's what people are doing.

Disgusting.

Is it better for the feelings of rich people? Because that's what's important.

I hope you get a better job, and they get a worse employee in return.

"I still think the scientists were wrong," people will say, as the world burns around them.