Red Mosquito

Bi_3 wrote:Shooting the kid after he threw the gun down and was starting to raise his hands is not a good look for Chicago PD.

but the kid had priors. bet he had thc in his system



*all excuses people like to make

Peeps wrote:

Bi_3 wrote:Shooting the kid after he threw the gun down and was starting to raise his hands is not a good look for Chicago PD.

but the kid had priors. bet he had thc in his system



*all excuses people like to make

Yup. Plenty of pics of him throwing LK signs circulating already.


But this is radically different than Wright, kid appears to be surrendering.

What's LK?

B wrote:What's LK?

Latin Kings

Oh, well fuck that kid. Solid kill.

Oh, I see.
But wait.

Have we had a controversial police shooting in Chicago since George Floyd? Could be a big one.

How is it possible two things are true when I dont like one of them? But it doesnt matter because he had dropped the gun and was surrendering prior to being shot by the cops. This is pretty clear cut.


Gun drop video:

no he was armed!

I don't think the strobe feature on the cops weapons light was helpful in this situation.

Cops are the worst

spike wrote:
But wait.

It was more like the instant he got shot rather than seconds before.

So you’re saying that andy took a video snippet which misrepresented the circumstances of the shooting by not including key moments, and promoted that? Unheard of. He wouldn’t.

McParadigm wrote:So you’re saying that andy took a video snippet which misrepresented the circumstances of the shooting by not including key moments, and promoted that? Unheard of. He wouldn’t.

Including his gang names was a nice touch.

I'm saying that "seconds before" suggests he was just standing there with his hands up waiting to be shot rather than running, turning around and throwing his arms up and being shot almost immediately (as the video Ngo linked to showed that the other guy didn't link to).

McParadigm wrote:So you’re saying that andy took a video snippet which misrepresented the circumstances of the shooting by not including key moments, and promoted that? Unheard of. He wouldn’t.

No one here was saying that until you did. The two tweets show different frames from two distinct moments in the same widely circulating video and describe the frames individually without claim to describing the whole event.

In watching the video it appears he tossed the gun to surrender. He should not have been shot. But that doesn't mean he didnt have a gun a second or two before the shot was fired. Not sure why this is so confusing to for you.

Bi_3 wrote:

McParadigm wrote:So you’re saying that andy took a video snippet which misrepresented the circumstances of the shooting by not including key moments, and promoted that? Unheard of. He wouldn’t.

No one here was saying that until you did. The two tweets show different frames from two distinct moments in the same widely circulating video and describe the frames individually without claim to describing the whole event.

In watching the video it appears he tossed the gun to surrender. He should not have been shot. But that doesn't mean he didnt have a gun a second or two before the shot was fired. Not sure why this is so confusing to for you.

I was saying that. At what point is he no longer armed?

Man, really couldn't have foreseen this response by RM's finest, very surprising stuff here.

spike wrote:

Bi_3 wrote:

McParadigm wrote:So you’re saying that andy took a video snippet which misrepresented the circumstances of the shooting by not including key moments, and promoted that? Unheard of. He wouldn’t.

No one here was saying that until you did. The two tweets show different frames from two distinct moments in the same widely circulating video and describe the frames individually without claim to describing the whole event.

In watching the video it appears he tossed the gun to surrender. He should not have been shot. But that doesn't mean he didnt have a gun a second or two before the shot was fired. Not sure why this is so confusing to for you.

I was saying that. At what point is he no longer armed?

In the vimeo the Ngo linked he clearly has the gun at 2:38:39 timestamp and does not at 2:38:40 (when he is shot).

Judging from the video it could have been an accidental shooting, poor judgement or quick execution by a white supremacist nazi. I wonder which one people will instantly decide to go with as the unassailable truth, justifying looting a Target despite the fact that there were thirty other shootings in Chicago last weekend.