Read the following excerpt from a US court opinion:
```
certain an individual is armed; rather, the issue is whether a reasonably prudent person would justifiably believe that he or others were in danger. Id. (citing O’Hara v. State, 27 S.W.3d 548, 551 (Tex.Crim.App.2000)). In the present case, Sgt. Meisel observed a bulge in the front of appellant’s pants, and believed the object was a weapon. Sgt. Meisel conveyed this information to the uniformed officer who patted appellant down. According to Deputy Palcios, the object was located in an area where people commonly carry weapons. Deputy Palcios also explained they thought it suspicious appellant had not entered the metal detector area at the airport. These specific and articulable facts reasonably led the officers to conclude appellant might possess a weapon. See Roy, 55 S.W.3d at 157 ; see also Pennsylvania v. Mimms, 434 U.S. 106,
```
What is the most suitable continuation to the opinion? Your options are:
A. recognizing the search of incoming international mail at or near the arrival airport to be a search at the functional equivalent of the border
B. holding that use of deadly force was justified against a suspect when officer forced to make a splitsecond decision relied on his reasonable belief that another officer had seen a gun in the suspects hands even though the suspects hands were handcuffed in front of him and the defendant officer never saw a weapon
C. holding the escalating intrusiveness of airport screen search from metal detector to pat down to emptying and searching pockets was minimally intrusive
D. holding pat down at airport justified after officer observed bundle under suspects clothing near waist
E. holding detention occurred after officer observed large bundle near suspects waist and handcuffed suspect for further investigation
Reply with [A, B, C, D, E] only.