I haven’t heard a statement from the other side of the story, but it seems you have. So please, inform us all. Otherwise, your speculation based in distrust and hate is moot.
We only have one source of facts at the moment, with a promise for a more detailed followup so, yeah, it carries weight.
I don’t know why a 13yo would do such a thing, or why they even had a replica gun. I’m not them. I feel sorry for them, but according to the facts I know right now, it was a bad choice. I am especially interested if the red tip were removed designating a toy. As the article references a replica, not a toy, I wonder if that had some influence in the outcome.
I am fully prepared to change my view if new evidence persuades me.
The other side is dead. And there’s a video in this thread that shows one cop already in control of the kid and another just shooting him, this isn’t cool no matter what happened before that.
If you’d read the article, the police admitted that they are lying about it:
The department said it is also aware of a video circulating on social media of the incident but warned that it does not portray the incident in its entirety.
When the police say ‘believe us not the evidence’, that means they’re lying.
When the police kill an unarmed child and then try to justify their actions, they’re going to have to lie because there’s no justifiable reason to kill an unarmed child. Hence claiming that the dead child both fled and menanced them and pre-discrediting the evidence against them.
There’s an ocean of examples of police lying to cover up their killings. They lie so often that they got the courts to confirm they have no duty to tell the truth.
Your radical denial of where all the evidence points is not as moderate as you seem to believe.
I’m just curious, does it ever get tiring? I imagine doing anything 24/7 must be, but licking that many boots just sounds exhausting.
Do you realize there’s a reason you’re being consistently downvoted? Do you care to understand why your opinions are so frowned upon? Or do you simply conclude, in your tiny obedient mind, that the “radicals” dislike the police because we’re all thugs?
This is a trend decades (if not centuries or millennia) in the making, of people in power abusing said power and lying about it. You defending them is a pathetic waste of your time.
Honestly, the downvotes don’t bother me as much as the gossip and unchecked hysteria in some Lemmy communities. This is a controversial topic and this is a discussion.
But some take differing viewpoints as a personal attack and double down.
I have my own biases, I recognize that, but I try to stick with facts like I have in this thread. But I’ve been on both sides of a police-focused argument before and also massively attacked for assuming police were out to get a company. I backed it up with facts too but that issue was hard to defend.
I may not agree with people here, and you may not agree with me, but votes don’t make you right. You’re free to present evidence the police in this article acted outside their authority anytime; all I hear are soapbox radicals with an axe to grind.
You love classifying differing opinions as those from “radicals”. I hope to God you don’t have any power over others in your life, because your mindset is dangerous.
Radicalization (or radicalisation) is the process by which an individual or a group comes to adopt increasingly radical views in opposition to a political, social, or religious status quo.
So the “all police are lying murderers until they convince me they’re not, but I won’t let that happen” crowd sort of fit. Then there are the wannabees that try to fit in and fan the flames.
For all you know, we are both AI bots out to steer the course of dialogue and incite our respective groups.
Spooky fingers oooOOOOooooo
If there is anything to take away, talking to all of you in this thread now, is that I love debates and discord among strangers and while we don’t see eye to eye, I’d have a beer with you folks and at the end of the day, wish you all well.
I haven’t heard a statement from the other side of the story, but it seems you have. So please, inform us all. Otherwise, your speculation based in distrust and hate is moot.
We only have one source of facts at the moment, with a promise for a more detailed followup so, yeah, it carries weight.
I don’t know why a 13yo would do such a thing, or why they even had a replica gun. I’m not them. I feel sorry for them, but according to the facts I know right now, it was a bad choice. I am especially interested if the red tip were removed designating a toy. As the article references a replica, not a toy, I wonder if that had some influence in the outcome.
I am fully prepared to change my view if new evidence persuades me.
The other side is dead. And there’s a video in this thread that shows one cop already in control of the kid and another just shooting him, this isn’t cool no matter what happened before that.
If you’d read the article, the police admitted that they are lying about it:
When the police say ‘believe us not the evidence’, that means they’re lying.
WOW do you like your own narrative.
That’s not an admission to lying whatsoever.
That is literally what it says it is: that the video circulating online does not portray the entire incident.
Any armchair editor knows how to add start/stop points to a clip. It could be to emphasize a point, exclude content, or simply meet time constraints.
People these days… so easily radicalized. Take a breather and wait for more info.
When the police kill an unarmed child and then try to justify their actions, they’re going to have to lie because there’s no justifiable reason to kill an unarmed child. Hence claiming that the dead child both fled and menanced them and pre-discrediting the evidence against them.
There’s an ocean of examples of police lying to cover up their killings. They lie so often that they got the courts to confirm they have no duty to tell the truth.
Your radical denial of where all the evidence points is not as moderate as you seem to believe.
Unarmed?
Literally armed with a pellet gun. It’s in the title!
I’m just curious, does it ever get tiring? I imagine doing anything 24/7 must be, but licking that many boots just sounds exhausting.
Do you realize there’s a reason you’re being consistently downvoted? Do you care to understand why your opinions are so frowned upon? Or do you simply conclude, in your tiny obedient mind, that the “radicals” dislike the police because we’re all thugs?
This is a trend decades (if not centuries or millennia) in the making, of people in power abusing said power and lying about it. You defending them is a pathetic waste of your time.
Honestly, the downvotes don’t bother me as much as the gossip and unchecked hysteria in some Lemmy communities. This is a controversial topic and this is a discussion.
But some take differing viewpoints as a personal attack and double down.
I have my own biases, I recognize that, but I try to stick with facts like I have in this thread. But I’ve been on both sides of a police-focused argument before and also massively attacked for assuming police were out to get a company. I backed it up with facts too but that issue was hard to defend.
I may not agree with people here, and you may not agree with me, but votes don’t make you right. You’re free to present evidence the police in this article acted outside their authority anytime; all I hear are soapbox radicals with an axe to grind.
You love classifying differing opinions as those from “radicals”. I hope to God you don’t have any power over others in your life, because your mindset is dangerous.
So the “all police are lying murderers until they convince me they’re not, but I won’t let that happen” crowd sort of fit. Then there are the wannabees that try to fit in and fan the flames.
For all you know, we are both AI bots out to steer the course of dialogue and incite our respective groups.
Spooky fingers oooOOOOooooo
If there is anything to take away, talking to all of you in this thread now, is that I love debates and discord among strangers and while we don’t see eye to eye, I’d have a beer with you folks and at the end of the day, wish you all well.
Let’s keep the emotions in check.
Yes, unarmed. As in not bearing a weapon. A toy is not a weapon and poses no threat at all.
That’s why toys have red tips. If there is no red tip, as in a replica, it looks and assumed to be real.
Nobody will hear a statement from the other side of the story because the other side is a dead 13 year old.
According to the article there were 2 youths.
There is another side.
There also should be body-cam video that should portray a reasonable unbiased view of the situation.