I posted a video which you ignored. The protestor tossed the canister a few feet away from himself, it was not thrown back at the police. He was shot in the face from across the street. He was standing across the street from police, making no threatening moves. There was no reason for the tear gas in the first place.
I didn’t ignore it, I used that video to deliberately identify what is not simply standing, as the reason to get shot by the police.
Whether or not the tear gas was necessary has exactly zero bearing on the statement that K9 was trying to slip in (by being hyperbolic) , the fact remains that the protestor who got shot was not simply standing. He was actively doing something the police didn’t want him doing.
If I had to assume, I would assume that tear gas was used to disperse the crowd. He was actively fighting against that dispersion by throwing the canister away, and got shot as a result of that action.
There was no crowd around him. What was he doing that required dispersal? Even if he disobeyed a dispersal order, being shot in the face is way the fuck beyond appropriate force. You walk over with your armored buddies and arrest him.
Maybe provide proof he was ordered to disperse rather that assuming.
The proof you are requesting is irrelevant to the statement that K9 made.
It does not matter whether it should have been done.
In the video the @running_coach is talking about, I would call that just standing. He is posing no threat to the police or to property or to anyone.
To me, that is just standing.
You insisted that it was not just standing.
Using interchangeable definitions based on what works best for you at the time may be a way to make you think that you are winning internet points, but it does not lead to a productive discussion.
So, since you no longer are insisting that we use your definition, then yes, they were just standing there.
Some people were even in their houses when they were being shot at by LEO.
You can’t justify it, so instead you play word games. Well your word games are stupid, and you are the only one who thinks that you are “winning”.
Gotcha,
I am done playing this game with you. I made no words up, you chose to interpret them to mean something other than what they mean, but hey you do you!
Which explains why you or your advocates need to try and make this about something other than what you espoused.
Or you could walk back what you said, admit it was hyperbolic and flat out wrong and move on.
I won’t be holding my breath, nor will I be replying further.
That’s odd. I am playing no game, you came in and excoriated for being hyperbolic, while using your own definitions of words.
What I said was not hyperbolic, it just went over your head. You were not able to understand it because of the biases that you have chosen to indulge.
It is not flat out wrong, nor hyperbolic, to say that someone who is presenting no threat to LEO, property, or others is “doing nothing but standing”, (you also changed what I said to “just standing there”, which is poor form on your part, but I chose not to make an issue of that particular error on your part) that is only in your head. You chose to make it an issue of contention, and you failed, miserably.
The entire point was that they were not being a threat to police, property, or others, and yet they were shot at and treated as though they were, and the police themselves used the excuse that they were being a threat.
So, your disagreement isn’t even with me, it is with the police that you are defending.
Lets go back to the original post that started this kerfuffle
Kersen1, would it this long degression been avoided if instead of “standing on two legs” k9bfriender had written,
“Standing on two legs and kicking a tear gas cannister 2 feet.”
or
“Standing on two legs and filming police from their own porch”
or
“Standing on two legs and reporting the news”
or
“Standing on two legs and talking to police.”
Yes it is true that all of these people were doing something else besides just standing there, so in a very narrow sense you are correct, congratulations you win 10 internet points They weren’t just standing there, some of them could even have been humming show tunes to themselves before themselves before they were shot.
I’m sure that k9bfriender is man/woman (anyone know K9bfrienders gender?) enough to accept this, because it does absolutely nothing to address the main point that standing in peaceful protest while possibly engaging in other activities that similarly pose zero threat to police can still elicit a violent reaction from police, but that perhaps being completely prone and submissive might be a way to avoid injury.
…for those wondering whats happening in Portland today, here is Washington Post’s Katie Shepard’s live feed on twitter.
The Proud Boys are marching.
The Proud Boys are shooting pellet guns at counter protestors. The police aren’t stopping them. The police aren’t there.
The Proud Boys are deploying pepper spray.
The Proud Boys are clubbing counter protestors.
The Proud Boys are pointing guns.
And what are the police doing?
But sure. Lets shoot a protestor holding a boombox in the head. For the crime of not standing completely still.
…the latest development will not surprise anyone.
The Proud Boys leave. Then the Feds declare an “unlawful assembly.”
…okay, that actually made me laugh 
I think I’m gonna drop this right here.
Money quote:
Results show that when controlling for assigned tactics, self-identified Republicans but not Democrats perceive higher levels of violence when a disliked group is protesting. The effect is strongest in regard to tactics that are nominally the least disruptive.
https://www.tandfonline.com/doi/abs/10.1080/10584609.2020.1793848?journalCode=upcp20&
I would speculate that the cause of the disparity is due to media bias among Republicans. Interesting how they sourced through MTurk, though - that’s a self-selected sample of self-identifying internet persons.
~Max
Hmm. Maybe. I suspect it might correlate with some of the self-sorting by trait that has occurred with the two major parties in the US. It seems to me that it is connected to threat orientation. I think it is why Republican candidates tend to do well with fear mongering.
Well, conservative leaning media outlets tend to pack on the fear and panic because it works on their preferred audience. I think it’s a chicken/egg question at this point.
Yeah, mostly peaceful Molotov cocktail throwing anarchists and looters are so much less threatening than kids wearing hats. Which is why criticism is restricted to the latter on this site.
Ladies and gentlemen, another data point to buttress the study.
That guy’s such a fucking asshole.