> Recently Georgia police killed an environmental activist protesting the construction of Cop City:
I mean, thanks for the link I guess, but I'd say this sentence leaves out some very important details. Namely, that the cops are claiming that this person shot and seriously wounded a cop first.
To be clear, your linked article explains how it's not really clear yet what the sequence of events were, or if the person actually shot a cop. But I'd put it like this:
1. If the person did shoot the cop first, I have no problems with the other cops opening fire.
2. If the person did not shoot the cop first, then the cops should face severe legal charges.
Since the facts on the ground are not yet known, I'll withhold judgment.
I know what qualified immunity is, but your statement is easily provably false given that there are many instances where cops have been found guilty for assault, unlawful killing or excessive force.
I'm not arguing it's as easy as proving it for a civilian (after all, as part of their job cops are allowed to use force under particular circumstances), but these black-and-white statements like "They should but they won’t" just show to me how uninterested people are listening to anything that may change their opinion.
Many is relative to the amount of illegal police activity. Depending on your perspective, that is not nearly enough and so saying they won’t be charged is perfectly warranted.
That you posted this shows a lack of interest by you to look into the other perspective, and that you’d rather be pedantic and dismissive than acknowledge their viewpoint.
> That you posted this shows a lack of interest by you to look into the other perspective, and that you’d rather be pedantic and dismissive than acknowledge their viewpoint.
Sorry, not going to let that BS slide. I was referring to a comment that said "With the existence of qualified immunity, American cops are immune to #2. They should but they won’t." It's not "being pedantic" to point out that comment makes absolutely no sense, given (a) qualified immunity isn't even relevant in criminal cases, and (b) they are making a blanket statement with no concern for the actual facts of the situation.
The thing preventing cops from being brought on charges is, the vast majority of the time, an uncooperative DA. qualified immunity is a complete red herring.
That article does not provide much evidence to support the police view of the situation.
> According to the report, more than "five particles characteristic of GSR" were found when using a "scanning electron microscopy/energy dispersive x-ray spectroscopy (SEM/EDS) and analyzed for elemental composition and particle morphology"
> ...
> According to the DeKalb County Medical Examiner's report, Teran had at least 57 gunshot wounds in their body, including the hands, torso, legs and head.
> ...
> While the Atlanta Police Department released body camera footage that shows audio of the shootout, there is no footage that shows the actual incident, according to the Georgia Bureau of Investigation.
I don't know anything about GSR testing, but 5 particles seems low for someone firing a weapon. With 57 shots that hit him it seems reasonable that significant GSR would be present even if he did not fire a weapon. I can't find any sources to indicate typical particle counts for firing a weapon.
I have a hard time imagining a situation where police have the opportunity to shoot (and hit) 57 times without resolving the threat.
I also cannot think of a good reason for the police to not have their cameras on when approaching the protesters. The police had the opportunity to ensure that there was enough clarity and evidence to make an educated decision, but they chose not to.
> I also cannot think of a good reason for the police to not have their cameras on when approaching the protesters. The police had the opportunity to ensure that there was enough clarity and evidence to make an educated decision, but they chose not to.
This is the smoking gun for me. Judgement should automatically be against the police anytime it's found they willfully disabled their bodycams during a disputed interaction.
They didn’t disable their bodycams. The department that shot Teran doesn’t have them in the first place. This is obviously a problem, but it’s not as serious of a problem as willfully disabling them before shooting someone.
> No, that is total bullshit, and sick of people, who have clearly already made up their mind, asserting there is certainty in the facts when that is obviously not true.
That’s fine to be sick of them - but it’s still not an argument against what I said.
This is insane to me. It absolutely does matter whether the person actually shot at the cops or not. The idea that people should be free to go around shooting other people because it's a cause they believe in is when society really falls apart.
I am curious why my post was downvoted so much. It's like people don't want to even wait until the facts are fully known. They want to go with the side that validates their preconceived narrative (whichever narrative that is), reality be damned.
I mean, thanks for the link I guess, but I'd say this sentence leaves out some very important details. Namely, that the cops are claiming that this person shot and seriously wounded a cop first.
To be clear, your linked article explains how it's not really clear yet what the sequence of events were, or if the person actually shot a cop. But I'd put it like this:
1. If the person did shoot the cop first, I have no problems with the other cops opening fire.
2. If the person did not shoot the cop first, then the cops should face severe legal charges.
Since the facts on the ground are not yet known, I'll withhold judgment.