• credo@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    9
    arrow-down
    92
    ·
    4 months ago

    Why in our news cycle do we need to rage before there is any significant information about a story, then wait for the information, then either rage some more… or possibly never hear anything again. I absolutely get it. You call the cops, you get shot, that is highly unexpected- to say the least. Maybe.

    Perhaps the officer had her dead-to-rights and decided to pull the trigger. Perhaps she jumped out from behind a corner saying, “OH THANK GO…!”. Perhaps she thought the cop was the intruder and came after him with a bat, etc., etc., etc. The point is WE DON’T KNOW anything from this article.

    Yet, we are all supposed to sit in the edge of our seats waiting for such information. I HATE it.

    This article has no information other than,“Something really unexpected happened, more at 11!”

    So, why aren’t we allowed to wait until there is actual information before we pick up news? Or before we post it to lemmy to upvote, invent narratives, and rage away while we wait for important details?

    • girlfreddy@lemmy.ca
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      56
      arrow-down
      2
      ·
      4 months ago

      We need to rage because far too often it’s the cops murdering people who called for help … no maybe about it.

        • girlfreddy@lemmy.ca
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          16
          ·
          4 months ago

          She was shot in the head. There is a fair chance it was through a window because cops don’t aim for the head unless it is the only thing visible.

          While there is still a lot of info to come out, there is also a fair chance the cop didn’t know who he was shooting at and murdered the victim by mistake … because cops are trained to shoot first and ask forgiveness later.

          That she was shot in the head is in the article btw.

    • Buffalox@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      52
      arrow-down
      2
      ·
      edit-2
      4 months ago

      Maybe cops shouldn’t just shoot people at first sight, just because they think it’s a suspect.
      Use of deadly force should require caution.

      • credo@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        4
        arrow-down
        34
        ·
        4 months ago

        Maybe cops shouldn’t just shoot people at first sight, just because they think it’s a suspect.

        Maybe you shouldn’t make up facts that haven’t been reported.

    • Klear@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      41
      ·
      4 months ago

      Perhaps the officer had her dead-to-rights and decided to pull the trigger. Perhaps she jumped out from behind a corner saying, “OH THANK GO…!”. Perhaps she thought the cop was the intruder and came after him with a bat, etc., etc., etc

      None of these scenarios should end with a bullet in her head, are you crazy?

      • credo@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        1
        arrow-down
        1
        ·
        4 months ago

        The first two no. Which is exactly why I added them. Are you crazy? The last, who knows. Very likely not. But have you ever been hit in the head with a bat, or do you just like to sit on the couch and pretend what you would do if you were?

        In any event, actual news about this event has since been reported. You can stop pretending you knew what happened and rage at what did happen.

        • TheDoozer@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          15
          ·
          edit-2
          4 months ago

          So many of these stories are months or even years after the fact because unless the media gets on it, the incident gets buried immediately, and by the time the media gets ahold of it any investigation is challenging because it’s either so long after the fact or police “lost” evidence.

          It being reported immediately starts the accountability and makes it much more likely that there will be an investigation in the first place. Either you are too young to remember or just weren’t noticing, but reports of police killing unarmed minorities was exceptionally rare a few decades ago. Cops got away with anything and everything. That’s where Black Lives Matter came from, getting the mainstream media (and the justice department) to care when a black person gets killed.

          • credo@lemmy.world
            link
            fedilink
            arrow-up
            2
            ·
            4 months ago

            As I’ve said already, I’m not opposed in the least to the immediate reporting. I’m opposed to the assumptions made based on that limited reporting.

    • BigMacHole@lemm.ee
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      34
      arrow-down
      3
      ·
      4 months ago

      Women: Calls Cops for Help. Cops: Murder Women. You: We need to give the cops the Benefit of the Doubt!

      • credo@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        3
        arrow-down
        25
        ·
        4 months ago

        Cops: Murder Women.

        See? You just made that up. Please tell me where in this article that is explained.

        • BigMacHole@lemm.ee
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          10
          ·
          4 months ago

          You GOT me! She wasn’t Murdered! She was just Shot In The Head with a Gun for No Reason and Died for Unrelated Reasons! Ah Shucks! You’re a Smart One!

    • RedSeries@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      27
      arrow-down
      1
      ·
      4 months ago

      You, figuratively:

      “What if she deserved to be shot in the head?”

      You, literally:

      “I didn’t verbatim say that! So you’re wrong! Checkmate!”

      Go find some rope, holy shit.

      • credo@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        2
        arrow-down
        22
        ·
        4 months ago

        Lol, it didn’t say ANYTHING. Which is what I actually said. No “verbatim” about it, dumbass.

    • sunzu@kbin.run
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      26
      arrow-down
      1
      ·
      4 months ago

      Look at this guy “trusting the process”

      He must be living on a different time line then the rest of us where pigs are the good guys lol

      • credo@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        2
        arrow-down
        22
        ·
        4 months ago

        Oh- did I say I trusted the process? Please point that out, because I can’t find it.

        • sunzu@kbin.run
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          12
          arrow-down
          2
          ·
          edit-2
          4 months ago

          Well you highlighted there is a chance police dindu nuffin since people who control info didnt release it. These people also release such info when pig is in the clear, delay generally means they are working up a cover up based on prior precedent.

          You trust these clowns yourself, clearly gen pop over “trust me bro”

            • sunzu@kbin.run
              link
              fedilink
              arrow-up
              11
              arrow-down
              1
              ·
              4 months ago

              Clearly everyone read your post like that… You tell me why people would feel that way from what you said haha

              JFC…

              • credo@lemmy.world
                link
                fedilink
                arrow-up
                4
                arrow-down
                17
                ·
                4 months ago

                Because everyone of you jumped on this article exactly as I explained. With rage. If you knew anything about psychology, you would know that is an entirely expected outcome to hearing what you don’t want to in that moment.

                Frankly, I don’t give a shit, but I knew the same people who would jump to conclusions about what harkened in that house before any actual facts have been reported, would do EXACTLY the same with my post.

    • 2ugly2live@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      21
      arrow-down
      1
      ·
      4 months ago

      I don’t care if this woman pulled a Eustace and went “Ooga Booga Booga,” mask and all. A officer’s default reaction should not be “shoot in the head.” And they’re not releasing the footage, which they would happily do of they believed it was in their favor.

      Even if she came out with a bat/knife, they didn’t try to hit anything else? Leg, arm, shoulder, nothing? Neither officer had injuries, so who was shooting at them? Clearly it wasn’t this woman, but the article says they reported shots fired. Did they even get the intruder? I’m not going to say that every case is the same, but I’ve seen plenty of standoff videos where cops plead with people to drop the weapon, give multiple warnings, etc., and STILL don’t shoot to kill.

      There have been many, many cases of officers shooting first and asking questions later. And they usually just get a paid vacation. We will continue to rage until they understand that this is not okay, and that being an officer doesn’t give you carte blanche to shoot people when you get startled. If you can’t handle that, you shouldn’t be a officer

      Signed, Someone who shouldn’t be an officer because I also startle easy

      • Semi-Hemi-Lemmygod@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        9
        ·
        4 months ago

        Even if she came out with a bat/knife, they didn’t try to hit anything else? Leg, arm, shoulder, nothing?

        Aiming for center of mass is a pretty universal bit of firearm training. Doesn’t excuse their reaction, but it is what you should be doing if you’re gonna fire on someone. Going for legs or arms or a headshot means you’re more likely to miss.

        • skuzz@discuss.tchncs.de
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          10
          ·
          4 months ago

          Even civilian concealed carry training has some hands-on courses to teach why it is trained this way. You’re also taught, “only draw your weapon if you have intent to kill,” which is sobering in and of itself.

          This leads to the bigger question: why does US cop training paint every scenario as “time to pull out the hammer, I see a nail!”? That’s fundamentally wrong at its very core. “Oh, shit, an acorn! blam! blam! blam!

          It seems the very antithesis of the US legal tenet “innocent until proven guilty” as one can’t be innocent nor proven guilty if they’re already dead.

          • Semi-Hemi-Lemmygod@lemmy.world
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            5
            ·
            4 months ago

            Yeah, the issue isn’t that the cops didn’t shoot an arm or a leg, but that they shot at all. There’s the whole “Be sure of your target and what’s behind it” that they didn’t seem to learn.

        • 2ugly2live@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          3
          ·
          4 months ago

          another reason I shouldn’t be a cop

          Thank you for the info. I didn’t realize about the center mass part. Always good to get new info 👍🏾

      • credo@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        1
        arrow-down
        1
        ·
        4 months ago

        Nope, that’s exactly the level of detail people should have been waiting for.