Cops shoot airman

[Skywatcher]

@SteveG1

What the FUCK happened to “let’s wait until we know all the facts”? Or does that only work for one side???

Hell, even if the incident is over six months old, people still dive in without bothering to check if there are more facts available! And when someone does provide those facts, they get set upon by someone who had spicy chili for lunch.

[rayh]

@Weirddave

As a point of fact, the $26 pancake thing is an obvious strawman, the boy question was shot because his car tried to run down a cop. Weather or not that was the actual circumstance is in question, but claiming he was shot over “$26 worth of pancakes” is the worst kind of deliberate misrepresentation of the situation.)

Well the kid in question was not driving the car, he was sitting in the back seat. So saying “his” car tried to run down a cop is somewhat misleading. And where is the evidence that “his” car tried to run anyone down?

[SteveG1]

I was reacting to the blatant hypocrisy of those who, even with testimony and a vidotape, insist on the “wait for the facts” tactic, but were also the very same “usual suspects” who didn’t need any evidence at all in the pancake thread. Hypocrites.

[wring]

@SteveG1

I was reacting to the blatant hypocrisy of those who, even with testimony and a vidotape, insist on the “wait for the facts” tactic, but were also the very same “usual suspects” who didn’t need any evidence at all in the pancake thread. Hypocrites.

exactly. and yes, hypocrisy is the perfect word for it.

[Martin_Hyde]

@bup

Did you see the quote from Martin that

THAT’S the hypocrisy. It doesn’t matter that the two situations are different; it matters that he claims to wait on information. Like you, though, he has no problem calling a dead kid a thief even though there was no arrest and no trial.

I said that’s my general response. If you note in this very thread though I went on to explain how I felt about this based on the information I had, and I even said that based on said information I think it looks pretty bad (for the police officer.)

Just like I, at the very beginning of the IHOP thread said we don’t know for sure what happened, and then I posted based on what was likely and was was being reported. Recognizing the fact that new information could come out fundamentally changing the situation, but also deciding to talk about it anyways because this is a discussion forum and that’s what we do here.

[wring]

@Martin Hyde

said that’s my general response. If you note in this very thread though I went on to explain how I felt about this based on the information I had, and I even said that based on said information I think it looks pretty bad (for the police officer.)
Just like I, at the very beginning of the IHOP thread said we don’t know for sure what happened, and then I posted based on what was likely and was was being reported. Recognizing the fact that new information could come out fundamentally changing the situation, but also deciding to talk about it anyways because this is a discussion forum and that’s what we do here.

unhuh. yea. Somehow “looks pretty bad (for the police officer)” when there’s a fucking video tape of him shooting an unarmed person is as strong as you’ll go, yet an unarmed kid in the back of the car is some one who you’re somewhat satisfied is now dead 'cause, after all, he’s a thief.

major disconnects that I see are:

• In both situations, you have a police officer shooting (and in the one case killing) an unarmed person who was a passenger in a car.

• where there was a video tape of the shooting, you think it ‘looks pretty bad’ is the best you can muster while you’re busy awaiting more facts.

• however, you’re more than happy to assert that the dead victim is a thief, whose death has made the world somewhat better, not bothering to wait for additional information, indeed while agreeing that we don’t have the death penalty for petty theft, and that death is not an appropriate sanction for petty theft. yet his death is something that you find no fault with. (which kinda belies that whole 'wait for more evidence thing, ya know?)

• in both case, since it was a passenger that was harmed/killed, neither one of those victims were engaged in any conduct that could reasonably be asserted as felonious, threatening to the police officer.

• yet, in the one case you’re more than happy to label the dead young man as a thief (once again w/o specific facts other than he was among people who ran out on a bill), and not a ‘victim’ of a shooting.

so, in short, in the case w/a video tape, you’re thinking it ‘looks pretty bad’ (vs. is pretty bad), and want to wait for more information, but w/o a video tape you have no problem assuming it was a justifiable shooting, and we’re better off w/o the dead kid (apparently no other information is necessary in that case).

[Skywatcher]

@SteveG1

I was reacting to the blatant hypocrisy of those who, even with testimony and a vidotape, insist on the “wait for the facts” tactic, but were also the very same “usual suspects” who didn’t need any evidence at all in the pancake thread. Hypocrites.

Ah, okay. I haven’t really paid attention to either thread and got caught up in the “waiting for the facts” bit.