41–50 of 51 posts
Earlier quoted context omitted.
First, they say the analysis confirms the bullet "matched" Teran's handgun, not that the analysis confirmed the bullet was fired from the handgun. This analysis might have stopped after comparing the caliber. Second, https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/the-field-of-fire...
Yea AFAIK the whole "bullet gun fingerprint" idea is total bunk. You cannot tell if a specific bullet was fired from a specific gun.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
> I’d suggest that you are more likely to be shot by the police if you provoke them first than the other way around. I don't dispute this. But "provocation" is not a capital crime in this country.
By "provocation" I imagine the commenter means "pulled out a weapon."
Title: ‘Assassinated in cold blood’: activist killed protesting Georgia’s ‘Cop City’ Reality: Activist was "protesting" (ie. camping out) at the future site of a police training facility, cops arrived to kick them out, and there was a shoot-out that resulted in the activist being shot dead and a cop being injured. I'm not sure how the title got past the editors, considering how misleading it is. It's technically true…
Instead of jumping to conclusions, I think we should just wait for the body cam footage to become available. While not perfect, it will almost definitely tell a more clearer story than the unsubstantiated claims we've heard so far. Wait! You say there is no body cam footage? That the police went into the woods to make a dangerous arrest without any attempt to document their actions? Then that's easy too: assume it's…
Dangerous arrest? They weren't raiding a cartel den. They were evicting protesters/activists from a forest. You then argue that absent any evidence, we should assume that the cops were the bad guys and the activists were the good guys. But you can't have it both ways. If the activists were known to be dangerous, then we shouldn't assume that the cops were engaging in "murder". For instance, I doubt that The Guardian or many anti-police commentators would be decrying the lack of bodycam footage if they were raiding a cartel compound. On the flip side, if the activists weren't known to be dangerous, then your argument for "the police went into the woods to make a dangerous arrest without any attempt to document their actions" falls apart. Don't get me wrong, I'm pro body cams and think they should be present in cases like this, but assuming every instance without bodycam is police acting in bad faith is just political grandstanding.
Title: ‘Assassinated in cold blood’: activist killed protesting Georgia’s ‘Cop City’ Reality: Activist was "protesting" (ie. camping out) at the future site of a police training facility, cops arrived to kick them out, and there was a shoot-out that resulted in the activist being shot dead and a cop being injured. I'm not sure how the title got past the editors, considering how misleading it is. It's technically true…
Depends. If the cops involved do have intention to kill, and using the raid/protest to shoot a guaranteed fatal bullets, that is assassination. But proving it is near zero. At best it is just manslaughter at worst (which is bulk of infamous American police brutality), paid leaves. In this case, if the protestors are the usual well-known activist in that region (which sound is), then having him killed off with the cov…
I'm not sure what's the point you're trying to make here. If you read my previous comment, you'd realize that I didn't rule out that this was an "assassination", only that there wasn't any evidence to support that claim, and absent that it was responsible to leap to the conclusion of "assassination".
Instead of jumping to conclusions, I think we should just wait for the body cam footage to become available. While not perfect, it will almost definitely tell a more clearer story than the unsubstantiated claims we've heard so far. Wait! You say there is no body cam footage? That the police went into the woods to make a dangerous arrest without any attempt to document their actions? Then that's easy too: assume it's…
> Wait! You say there is no body cam footage? That the police went into the woods to make a dangerous arrest without any attempt to document their actions? Then that's easy too: assume it's murder unless they can prove otherwise by some facts beyond police testimony. Dangerous arrest? They weren't raiding a cartel den. They were evicting protesters/activists from a forest. You then argue that absent any evidence, we…
Do you have a better way of changing police policy to require the use of body cams in situations like this? I think normalizing a presumption that the police are hiding something (even if this is not true) is the most (and possibly only) effective means getting to somewhere better than where we are today. I genuinely have no idea what happened in this case, but in the absence of video evidence many people are going to presume the worst, and I can't prove that they are wrong. Regardless of whether the police acted appropriately in this instance, if we want to preserve respect for legitimate police authority (and I think it's important that we do) I think we need to force the police to document their interactions rather than demanding they always being taken at their word.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
> Wait! You say there is no body cam footage? That the police went into the woods to make a dangerous arrest without any attempt to document their actions? Then that's easy too: assume it's murder unless they can prove otherwise by some facts beyond police testimony. Dangerous arrest? They weren't raiding a cartel den. They were evicting protesters/activists from a forest. You then argue that absent any evidence, we…
> Don't get me wrong, I'm pro body cams and think they should be present in cases like this, but assuming every instance without bodycam is police acting in bad faith is just political grandstanding. Do you have a better way of changing police policy to require the use of body cams in situations like this? I think normalizing a presumption that the police are hiding something (even if this is not true) is the most (a…
Making an honest effort to convince lawmakers and voters that we need more accountability in the form of bodycams? I know it's hard, but it's certainly going to be more effective than being intellectually dishonest by pretending that every police shooting without a bodycam involves police malfeasance. I use pretend, because I think even the most diehard bodycam proponent doesn't seriously think that every (or even most) police shooting has police acting maliciously. Doing so basically amounts to chanting "ACAB", which is great for signaling to your fellow activist friends that you also hate cops, but isn't going change hearts and minds. Remember, most americans trust the police[1], so chanting stuff like "ACAB" or "assume it's murder unless they can prove otherwise" is only going to alienate them.
[1] https://www.pewresearch.org/science/2022/02/15/americans-tru...