Your sarcasm detector needs recalibration.
Messed up my link here. This is what I meant to include:
Yes, and?
Law enforcement is so easy from the comfort of that keyboard, isn’t it.
What they ought to do is enforce the laws with the minimal force necessary while protecting themselves.
So that may mean being able to do what you think they should do. It also means that they may disperse the entire crowd in order to feel safe going after the criminals.
Everyone is already on board with police reform. Use that quorum as the opportunity to get things done and stop stepping on your dicks in your haste to get everything at once.
I have no idea what you’re talking about. You said police never, not ever, shoot people for standing there. I linked to a video of police shooting a person who was standing there.
All I can figure is that you are arguing he was presenting a threat to them, and I’m not able to see that from my keyboard. But I don’t want to put words in your mouth, so please, explain.
and yes, they didn’t fire upon a person simply for standing there.
Note the simply
From your own link it states that he pushed tear gas away. I have said if the order is given to disperse and you do not, then the repercussions of what happens to you is on you.
Do note that I am not saying they were in the right. I am not saying what he did was wrong. Merely questioning the validity of his intelligence. He may very well win some civil lawsuit from being shot, but he also could have been arrested.
That’s the life of a protestor I guess. When you have a desire to push back against the people who you think are oppressing you, you take risks. For him, it doesn’t sound like much but I suppose when federal officers give an order, they expect it to be followed and you run the risks associated with not following them.
They are investigating that particular incident.
But what he wasn’t doing, is simply standing.
“We are aware of the incident that happened on July 12 near the Hatfield U.S. Courthouse where an individual was injured while U.S. Marshals were securing the perimeter of the federal courthouse,” agency spokesperson Nikki Credic-Barrett said. “The U.S. Marshals Service takes all injuries potentially arising from use-of-force very seriously. The incident is currently being investigated, and more information will be released as soon as possible”
.”He also said some demonstrators play a role in escalating nonviolent protests into events that end with police using weapons on the crowd."
Thank you for this. I had hoped by “simply standing” you meant “not presenting a threat to the police in any way.” But no, you really mean “simply standing” with no other movement allowed. Well, that’s certainly a way to qualify your statement. I find it to be completely useless, but at least it proves my point that police, and you, are able to spin anything as justification for shooting someone.
Had to have been 1.
Holy shit!
Your link was from a reporter with significant bias, who had zero input from the officers doing the shooting, maybe wait a few minutes to gather said information before jumping to the (maybe wrong) conclusion. I don’t know what he did, i just said that it was reported.
Just like it was also reported that
That they went into zero detail about …hmm wonder why?
You know what they say about assuming.
Dude, I live in Portland and I’ve attended the protests in person. I’ve been gathering information about them daily for months. I’ve watched the videos of the guy standing there, kicking a canister back into the street, continuing the stand there, and getting shot in the face. I have no idea why you assert that the reporter is biased, unless reporting on an incident of police shooting a protester in the face is sufficient for you.
I really don’t know why you think it’s important that some demonstrators might be playing a role in escalating violence. This guy was standing there, and cops don’t get to use him as a face-shooting proxy if they’re frustrated.
I’ve really lost the thread of what you’re trying to argue, because you’re all over the place on this. If you want to argue that the face-shooting was justified, then do some research and bring evidence that supports your position. If you just want to throw out “hmm wonder why” JAQs, then this is pointless.
You’re just now getting around to understanding that trying to educate that guy is pointless? There’s obviously zero good faith communication happening and as usual it sucks all the air out of the room as it’s meant to.
Here’s what I’ve been waiting for–Portland has basically been operating without a a county DA for weeks since the outgoing one up and quit early and the guy who won the seat had to jump in early. He started on August first and this is the first major action I’ve noticed from his office and it’s very promising.
Watch the video then try to justify it.
I believe the argument here was that the person in question (shooting victim) tossed or kicked the tear gas canister back toward the police, which was not “simply standing”. Because, you know, the police are on a divine mission and anyone who tries to protect themself from the wrath of the almighty must be some sort of punishment-deserving hadean fiend.
What about simply laying on the ground screaming “Don’t shoot me”? Do cops ever shoot anyone for that?
They can’t help it. “Don’t shoot me” is, literally, a ‘trigger’ phrase.
CMC
Daniel Shaver, a 26-year-old man who was shot to death by a police officer in Mesa, Arizona in January 2016.
A disturbing, graphic video of the shooting was released shortly after the officer who killed Shaver, who was white, was acquitted of second-degree murder.
The video shows Shaver following the officer’s instructions to crawl toward him and begging him not to shoot.
That has to be fake. I have it on good authority by a poster in this thread that stuff like that never happens!
This never happened either.
“Florida policeman shoots autistic man’s unarmed black therapist”