An undercover police officer arranged to buy 2 magic mushroom chocolate bars over Instagram then opened fire within seconds, killing the driver and injuring the passenger for selling $100 worth of antidepressants. Perfectly justified.
An undercover police officer arranged to buy 2 magic mushroom chocolate bars over Instagram then opened fire within seconds, killing the driver and injuring the passenger for selling $100 worth of antidepressants. Perfectly justified.
Yeah gonna have to disagree with you on that.
The way that that is worded is exactly what I wanted to draw attention to.
That MW definition (preposition 7b) shows examples, “trouble over money” and, “met with advisors over lunch”.
For this, “over” can be substituted with, “because of” for the former but not the later.
Op means to incite emotional response from readers by using the “because of” version. And even if cops are fucked, that’s bullshit to not show all sides of the story.
That’s some Fox News shit.
You could say they were “set up” over 2 magic mushroom chocolate bars. But not killed over. The chocobars didn’t even come into play for the killing. They were just the reason all parties were there.
It could have happened over an M&M, or a dirty briefcase nuke, just the same.
To make a tag line to imply it was over something petty seems to be intentional to belittle law enforcement, and is just part of the agenda for Op, whether it be controversy for the upvotes, or actual distrust or hate for cops, whatever. The killing happened because of the shitty decisions by both the victim and the killer.
I’d like to point out I think very poorly of this cop. Wrongdoing by law enforcement should be called out. Killing should be punished.
But I mean…, I’ve been put in the drunk tank before and I’ll tell you right now, cops doing their job can work totally fine if you don’t resist, and don’t try to flee. If a cop says get on the ground and you do and you shut the fuck up, you’re likelyhood to not be shot, or even treated that badly, goes way the fuck up.
No I don’t.
I mean to invite emotional response using the meaning I just explained above - cops planned to arrest someone over nothing, and their incompetence lead to killing him over nothing.
If it was just because they had 2 shroom bars, that would be extrajudicial execution. That’s Duterte level policing and would be a national story.
The pointlessness of this arrest should be emotional - it’s an obvious injustice. The police set up a potentially deadly situation with no potential value to society. The standard mamallian response to being cornered was all it took to escalate this to fatal. Over nothing.
Nope, one side is objectively lying about the facts. Repeating the lies of the powerful is some fox news shit. I’m gonna to stick to presenting the facts - cops planned to arrest someone over nothing, and their incompetence lead to killing him over nothing.
I’m with you, that it was mishandled and the cop who fired is incompetent, I’m with you that loss of life is terrible, I’m with you that setting up a sort of sting to buy 2 zoomer-bars is a waste of taxpayer money. It’s all an injustice. As I said before the victim might not even have known the guy was a cop…
But they didn’t kill him over “nothing” they killed him over the flee attempt.
The guy must have been a known drug dealer for them to bother setting up. And reminder, he had a loaded semi-auto rifle in the vehicle. Though it doesn’t say anything about the legality of that weapon.
Anyway, here’s a scenario:
Man walks into convenience store.
Man shoplifts a chocolate bar.
Cop notices.
Cop says “hey stop”.
Man pulls hidden GRENADE from his pocket, pulls the pin, and attempts to throw at vicinity of cop.
Police shoot and kill man.
The way you say your headline should read:
DOJ says police officer justified in killing man for shoplifting chocolate bar.
I mean…c’mon.
In your scenario, the police did not actively seek out the situation and then fuck it up.
In this scenario, they did
The decision was: do I let this kid get away with selling 2 shroom bars or do I deploy potentially lethal force?
If someone’s unnecessarily killed during say an armed robbery, they weren’t killed over nothing, even if they could’ve been arrested.
Police are empowered to use violence with the understanding that it will benefit society. And most will agree that preventing armed robbery has value.
This officer deployed violence to prevent a kid from getting away with selling 2 shroom bars. Without any personal threat. That has no value to society, nothing. And a kid was killed over it.
I don’t understand why the particular events that happened before that seem so important to you?