Red Mosquito

Rob wrote:And yes, it matters what she said. Did you skip these last 3 awful pages?

No, I witnessed Burt crush you thoroughly and repeatedly.

macphisto wrote:

Rob wrote:

macphisto wrote:

Rob wrote:She's a "lunatic" like the ones you see on FB all the time looking for this shit. I don't know if she's crazy for real or not. I just want to know what she said before drawing all these conclusions.

Does it really matter what she said? She’s either a threat to self or others and should be taken into custody, or the police shouldn’t be there at all. This “Ope, soorry, just here to educate you on your rights” routine is fucked.

Right, no middle ground at all, like "let's check it out."

That’s correct. I’m sure you’ll remain logically consistent if someone posting angrily about police killing a black man get a friendly visit to remind them that looting and arson are illegal.

If the person threatened to go loot and riot, in public (and in Canada), I certainly would. Might even condone the Canadian way of handling it.

Rob wrote:

macphisto wrote:

Rob wrote:She's a "lunatic" like the ones you see on FB all the time looking for this shit. I don't know if she's crazy for real or not. I just want to know what she said before drawing all these conclusions.

Does it really matter what she said? She’s either a threat to self or others and should be taken into custody, or the police shouldn’t be there at all. This “Ope, soorry, just here to educate you on your rights” routine is fucked.

Right, no middle ground at all, like "let's check it out."

No, not really. Either its an actionable threat, or they should mind their own business. There isn't a "let's go give her a card and let her know she's being watched by the state" option.. I'm sure you could come up with some plausible middle ground scenario, but good luck threading that needle.

Why can't there be 2 types of responses to actionable threats? One that makes sure everything ok, and one that realizes there may be a "code red" and requires real action? The world isn't black and white. Again, we don't know what she posted, but if the police perceived it to be a credible threat, her experience would have been much worse in your world.

macphisto wrote:

Rob wrote:And yes, it matters what she said. Did you skip these last 3 awful pages?

No, I witnessed Burt crush you thoroughly and repeatedly.

You seem like a really pleasant guy.

Rob wrote:Why can't there be 2 types of responses to actionable threats? One that makes sure everything ok, and one that realizes there may be a "code red" and requires real action? The world isn't black and white. Again, we don't know what she posted, but if the police perceived it to be a credible threat, her experience would have been much worse in your world.

The cop says she came there to give her information on peaceful protest because of her activity on Facebook. I don't see any reason to believe she was there because she perceived a credible threat to people, then decided she was harmless, then lied about why she was there. You're reaching.

Hmmm, might want to re-listen to the video - between 10 & 15 seconds in...

Rob wrote:

macphisto wrote:

Rob wrote:And yes, it matters what she said. Did you skip these last 3 awful pages?

No, I witnessed Burt crush you thoroughly and repeatedly.

You seem like a really pleasant guy.

Did you just fucking assume my gender?

macphisto wrote:

Rob wrote:

macphisto wrote:

Rob wrote:And yes, it matters what she said. Did you skip these last 3 awful pages?

No, I witnessed Burt crush you thoroughly and repeatedly.

You seem like a really pleasant guy.

Did you just fucking assume my gender?

*presume

Rob wrote:

macphisto wrote:

Rob wrote:

macphisto wrote:

Rob wrote:And yes, it matters what she said. Did you skip these last 3 awful pages?

No, I witnessed Burt crush you thoroughly and repeatedly.

You seem like a really pleasant guy.

Did you just fucking assume my gender?

*presume

You want a knock on the door? Keep it up, pal!

There is a difference between posting an opinion of police and posting your support and potential participation in a protest.

macphisto wrote:

Rob wrote:

macphisto wrote:

Rob wrote:

macphisto wrote:

Rob wrote:And yes, it matters what she said. Did you skip these last 3 awful pages?

No, I witnessed Burt crush you thoroughly and repeatedly.

You seem like a really pleasant guy.

Did you just fucking assume my gender?

*presume

You want a knock on the door? Keep it up, pal!

Honest question, what does this mean?

E.H. Ruddock wrote:

macphisto wrote:

Rob wrote:

macphisto wrote:

Rob wrote:

macphisto wrote:

Rob wrote:And yes, it matters what she said. Did you skip these last 3 awful pages?

No, I witnessed Burt crush you thoroughly and repeatedly.

You seem like a really pleasant guy.

Did you just fucking assume my gender?

*presume

You want a knock on the door? Keep it up, pal!

Honest question, what does this mean?

I read it as an alleged misgendering would be cause for the police to visit Rob.

Correct. Context is everything.

AUSTIN, Texas (AP) — A Texas grand jury has indicted 19 Austin police officers on charges of aggravated assault with a deadly weapon for their actions during 2020 protests over racial injustice that spread nationwide following the killing of George Floyd, according to people familiar with the matter.

Multiple people spoke to The Associated Press Thursday on condition of anonymity because they were not authorized to discuss the case publicly.

It ranks among the most indictments on a single police department in the U.S. over tactics used by officers during the widespread protests — methods that led to the resignation or ouster of several police chiefs across the country.

Word of the indictments came hours after Austin city leaders approved paying $10 million to two people injured by police in the protests, including a college student who suffered brain damage after an officer shot him with a beanbag round.

Combined, the announcements amounted to Texas’ liberal capital taking some of its biggest actions as criticism still simmers over its handling of the protests, which intensified pressure on then-Police Chief Brian Manley to eventually step down.

Former police officer Kim Potter has been sentenced to 2 years in prison for the fatal shooting of Daunte Wright.

Potter, an officer for the Minneapolis suburb of Brooklyn Center, MN, shot Wright, a 20-year-old Black man, during a traffic stop in April 2021. Potter claimed she mistakenly pulled out her gun instead of her Taser in the moment.

The former officer was convicted of first- and second-degree manslaughter in December 2021. According to CNN, state law requires Potter to serve at least two-thirds of her sentence in prison, and she is eligible for supervised release for the rest with good behavior.
In her sentencing decision, Judge Regina Chu deviated from the state's recommended sentencing guidelines, which called for a 6- to 8.5-year sentence. Chu justified her decision by saying that 'sentencing guidelines are just that ... they are not set in stone,' and that Potter 'does not present a danger of future crimes.'

Stickman wrote:

Former police officer Kim Potter has been sentenced to 2 years in prison for the fatal shooting of Daunte Wright.

Potter, an officer for the Minneapolis suburb of Brooklyn Center, MN, shot Wright, a 20-year-old Black man, during a traffic stop in April 2021. Potter claimed she mistakenly pulled out her gun instead of her Taser in the moment.

The former officer was convicted of first- and second-degree manslaughter in December 2021. According to CNN, state law requires Potter to serve at least two-thirds of her sentence in prison, and she is eligible for supervised release for the rest with good behavior.
In her sentencing decision, Judge Regina Chu deviated from the state's recommended sentencing guidelines, which called for a 6- to 8.5-year sentence. Chu justified her decision by saying that 'sentencing guidelines are just that ... they are not set in stone,' and that Potter 'does not present a danger of future crimes.'

From what I've seen this is pretty fair. I don't believe she acted with malice and I don't see much point to harshly punishing somebody for being an idiot.

Yeah, but ACAB!

I think idiocy should be punished severely.