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.
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.