What’s your point with this and your previous post? That witnesses are unreliable, especially if they can compare their story with others’ before talking to investigators?
If so, then “I agree” would’ve been a shorter response to my post. Somehow I think you’re trying to turn it into a tu qoque or something, but damned if I can tell if there’s any rational theme behind your typing.
Hah! I can’t believe I recognized your TLA as Lame Stream Media!
Only total asshats use that TLA!
“Totally Lame Acronym”?
**doorhinge **is Sarah Palin? That would explain a lot.
In post #5494, you said, “I’m not saying that happened, but it was certainly made possible, because both accounts were part of a national dialogue for days (at least) before all the witnesses were officially deposed”.
Key words - I’m not saying that happened,
I say it (false eyewitness statements being promoted by the media outlets) actually did happen. You should have simply said you agreed with me. Instead, we were able to have a longer conversation that established that we agree.
Well, I tried.
ETA: Whether any testimony matching the “hands up” narrative was inaccurate isn’t the point. Inaccuracies and inventions are almost a given. The point was about the wisdom of not releasing a videotape until the deposing witnesses part of the investigation is done.
Reaching for your glasses is rash and immediate?
If you’re in a situation where doing so could be construed as a threat by someone who has the ability to respond to that threat with deadly force? Yes.
Yeah. If only we were awake enough, and had full use of our vision so we were able to see that there was actually a threat of deadly force. :smack:
You really are an idiot, aren’t you?
Marvel’s newest superhero: Opposum Man! He has the twitchy fear detection of the most frightened housecat, but when threatened, watch out! He can go semi comatose on you before you even know what hit you.
“Back in time to have some motherfuckin’ tea!”
How are you supposed to evaluate the nature of the threat immediately upon waking and without your glasses, I ask in full anticipation of yet another entertainingly insane layer of flimsy rationalization.
You awake. You are not in full possession of your visual capacities. You are aware that sounds are occurring in your dwelling that indicate the presence of an armed force. You are aware that under such circumstances reaching for your glasses could be perceived as a threat.
Do you choose to reach for your glasses?
You are a cop. You are serving a no-knock warrant, and once again it looks like somebody fucked up. You are expecting Venezuelan Drug Lords and instead here’s an old guy, foggy with sleep, reaching for his glasses.
Do you shoot him?
How exactly am I determining that the sounds “indicate the presence of an armed force”? I just hear loud noises and yelling, and I see bright lights and fuzzy motion.
Is it my wife having a problem with the dog? Is it a fire? -Oh Christ, the dog’s on fire, isn’t he? I better get my glasses on and help!
Just shoot me now then, please. Myopic me reaches for glasses on first awakening for five-plus decades now, like Pavlov’s Dog.
But fortunately I live in Thailand where cops are far more rational-acting than in U.S. (And Google “Thai police behavior” to see how amazing that fact is.)
I reach for my phased plasma rifle in the 40-watt range and let those bastards have it.
Is it your judgment that in such a situation, you would be best served by committing an act which could be construed as a threat by a person who is in your home, armed with a deadly weapon, and not as mentally infirm as you insist that you would be?
Oh, I"m not concerned for me; those armed force dudes would’ve tripped the fishing lines activating the shotgun traps on my doors and windows on their way in. I’m cool.*
I’m just saying the dog’s on fire, man!
*Sarcasm, again.
I wonder if there are any situations that are not best served by lying perfectly still.