Anonymous #3 14w

And?

17

Anonymous OP 14w

That’s an extremely important detail you left out.

-5

Anonymous #3 14w

I don’t think it’s that critical. If you’re saying that it implies lethal force when it was non lethal, I can kinda get it. But at the same time, I don’t think we should be diminishing what happened. There is no situation where shooting a projectile at a reporter on air should be allowed.

17

Anonymous OP 14w

I agree. But also none of us (more than likely) were there in that exact moment. She got closer than an officer would have liked, a lot of stuff is going on that is stressful with noise, fire, objects, etc. Fatigue can be a role as well, some officers were off shift and forced to come in on an emergency call. Fatigue severely affects judgement. I’m not defending, I’m just saying there are a ton of possibilities that could have lead to it.

2

Anonymous #4 14w

In the video she’s talking to the camera, then you see the officer on the side break formation, calmly turn, look at her (seemingly without giving any verbal warning, as her back was turned), and then aim and shoot.

13

Anonymous OP 14w

When you say someone was shot most people assume with a live round which is a lot worse. That would be attempted murder.

1

Anonymous OP 14w

Yes I saw it. I’m saying that the human mind can only take so much, and especially if you were trained to react a certain way it’ll come to that. They may have looked like they calmly turned, but you have no idea what was going through their head. I could be right, or totally wrong. Nobody will ever truly know, all people can do is speculate, and then argue on those speculations. I’m just sharing the benefit of the doubt.

-5

Anonymous #4 14w

It definitely sounds like you’re trying to defend it

5

Anonymous drums_of_liberation 14w

After I said I could be right or wrong, and I’m sharing something that can be completely possible. No. I said I have no idea, and most likely never will.

-4

Anonymous #4 14w

I think we should hold our law enforcement officers to a higher standard of discipline than we would the average citizen. Unfortunately, we often give them more leniency than we would an average person. Like if this was some random dude in front of his shop “defending his property” from the riotous news reporter, would there be as many people defending him?

7

Anonymous #3 14w

And most people assume that being shot with a rubber bullet is like getting hit with a nerf gun

9

Anonymous OP 14w

Depends on a lot of factors. Which is exactly why I hate how laws work. Nothing is ever black and white, it’s always a gray area.

-4

Anonymous OP 14w

It’s not but I’d also much rather be shot with a rubber bullet than be shot with a live round. One is designed to be non lethal and the other is designed to kill you.

-2

Anonymous #3 14w

Yes I know, I said that above lol

3

Anonymous #4 14w

I’d generally agree, although I personally cannot find a way to justify this specific case

7

Anonymous #4 14w

Sitting here & trying to act like there could possibly be a good reason for a cop to step out of line, aim there weapon at a reporter who’s not even close enough to touch him, & then shoot said reporter in the back is insane boot licking behavior.

6

Anonymous drums_of_liberation 14w

You weren’t trained by their department, you’re not that person, you’re not in the same situation as they were. You have as good as an idea of why that event took place as I do. Benefit of the doubt. He could be a completely evil person that just wanted to pop a round off. I couldn’t tell you.

-4

Anonymous #4 14w

So you're telling me there's possibly a good & valid reason to shoot a reporter who's yards away from you in the back while they're doing news coverage? And I'm wrong for not giving the cop the benefit of the doubt & considering that extremely valid reason that you believe might exist?

3

I never said you were wrong. I just like collecting every possible fact for a definitive answer. I wasn’t there. Like I said, you could be right, you could be wrong. But saying that something is this for fact off of limited information isn’t fair. And my explanation of the benefit of the doubt doesn’t make the officer’s decision ‘right’. It’s just providing a potential explanation that wasn’t malicious.

-2

Anonymous drums_of_liberation 14w

I don’t think you quite understand what I’m saying. So I’ll repeat myself. Stress, fatigue, fear, etc. can all be potential factors in poor decision making. You’re not that officer, you didn’t do the training they did, you can’t see what they see at that moment. It could have been a reaction that wasn’t malicious, and what I mean behind that is it wasn’t a planned hurtful action. More of a reaction. But like I said, that’s not definitive. It could have been completely malicious.

-1

Anonymous #4 14w

What difference does it make? If he shot out of fear, stress, fatigue or shoot because he's a horrible person he still did a bad & unjustifiable thing so I don't get the point you're trying to make. Am I supposed to say well the office was having a bad day so that changes things?

4

Anonymous #3 14w

It still doesn’t justify the officer AIMING, and FIRING directly at her, still striking her

7

Anonymous #3 14w

Not non-lethal. Less lethal. Big difference

3

The fact remains that an officer of the law specifically shot a reporter who was doing nothing but her job. Remember that anything coming out of a gun can and will kill you if you’re unlucky. That is why rubber bullets are specifically referred to as less-lethal ammunition. They can and do still kill people, they just aren’t quite as efficient at it as regular metal bullets

5