The only other people were other press. There were camera and microphone operators. Looking at the video, it’s so obvious that the cop aimed at the press and then shot.
Is there any way to tell what kind of cop that was?
I’d like to present a different view. It doesn’t excuse the shot, but it could offer an explanation better than “the officer took aim and shot the journalist for shits and giggles”
The officer clearly took aim and shot the journalist on purpose. But when the camera turns 180 to GTFO you see a crowd. It would seem, to me at least, that the members of the press were positioned between the police and the protesters.
It can be hard to tell from that angle, and with no context, how the lines were drawn. But let’s, for the sake of the argument, just go with this assumption. It would appear that the police wanted to get the press to fuck on out of there, so there would be no bystanders before pushing the protesters back.
Doesn’t that make it OK? Not really. One could argue that police wouldn’t want to hurt the press, and getting them out was necessary. One could also be lead to believe that the police could have other motives for not wanting the press there with their pesky cameras.
One could argue that police wouldn’t want to hurt the press, and getting them out was necessary.
Ah yes, getting them out by shooting them with less lethal bullets. What an dishonest shit argument. Also journalists have special protections since 2020 from the police targeting them. I wonder why this was necessary
It bars police from “intentionally assaulting, interfering with, or obstructing” their newsgathering.
I was not arguing in favor of the police officer there. I presented two arguments with a varying degree of malicious intent.
I don’t buy the argument you’re quoting either, but I do buy that the officer would try it if questioned through his union. If for nothing else than, it’s better PR than the second proposed argument.
This is not the kind of situation where anyone’s gonna get sat down and debriefed. The LEO that are responding to these situations are already vetted. The people who said they might not be comfortable didn’t get put on the list. The humans who are there in uniform are most likely there because they want to be and are itchy to shoot.
The only other people were other press. There were camera and microphone operators. Looking at the video, it’s so obvious that the cop aimed at the press and then shot.
Is there any way to tell what kind of cop that was?
My extensive experience leads me to think he is a bastard
Well that totally narrows it down…
easy way: they were a cop. all types are the same: bastard traitor terrorists.
A bastard.
I’d like to present a different view. It doesn’t excuse the shot, but it could offer an explanation better than “the officer took aim and shot the journalist for shits and giggles”
The officer clearly took aim and shot the journalist on purpose. But when the camera turns 180 to GTFO you see a crowd. It would seem, to me at least, that the members of the press were positioned between the police and the protesters.
It can be hard to tell from that angle, and with no context, how the lines were drawn. But let’s, for the sake of the argument, just go with this assumption. It would appear that the police wanted to get the press to fuck on out of there, so there would be no bystanders before pushing the protesters back.
Doesn’t that make it OK? Not really. One could argue that police wouldn’t want to hurt the press, and getting them out was necessary. One could also be lead to believe that the police could have other motives for not wanting the press there with their pesky cameras.
Ah yes, getting them out by shooting them with less lethal bullets. What an dishonest shit argument. Also journalists have special protections since 2020 from the police targeting them. I wonder why this was necessary
https://apnews.com/article/gavin-newsom-california-27c9b8a1c530df4344b4909fd8d7993d
I was not arguing in favor of the police officer there. I presented two arguments with a varying degree of malicious intent.
I don’t buy the argument you’re quoting either, but I do buy that the officer would try it if questioned through his union. If for nothing else than, it’s better PR than the second proposed argument.
This is not the kind of situation where anyone’s gonna get sat down and debriefed. The LEO that are responding to these situations are already vetted. The people who said they might not be comfortable didn’t get put on the list. The humans who are there in uniform are most likely there because they want to be and are itchy to shoot.
Were you born yesterday?