In no way am I trying to justify the shooting of Daunte Wright.
However, this document (case 27-CR-19-29850 via publicaccess.courts.state.mn.us/DocumentSearch), should be noted as it suggests a reason that the shooting officer was moved to draw any weapon at all.*
Again, the shooting can not be justified... but neither can the media reporting his outstanding warrant as simply 'marijuana-related' and failing to report for two full days on the more serious prosecution wherein he attempted to strangle a woman at gunpoint.
This delay in reporting gives those who intend to use fear as a weapon and exacerbate racial tensions - they relish the opportunity to to decry those justifiably outraged at LE treatment of black men...
And when media doesn't reveal the full back story in a timely fashion, activists who believe him to be innocent of serious criminal activity are then cast as supporting those who have engaged in domestic violence and attempted robbery.
And that drives the wedge deeper.
* note: I couldn't formulate a 280c way to say "drew any weapon - claimed to have drawn the intended taser but accidentally drew a gun...." etc.
Any weapon = non-lethal.
Feigned outrage can step aside, that's not the point I'm trying to address here.
• • •
Missing some Tweet in this thread? You can try to
force a refresh
Can the media - as corps or indivs- be sued for refusing to report on a matter of extreme significance national security and feigning ignorance- regardless of their actual intent - that facilitates a racketeering operation to conceal said national security threats?
Does refusing to report on a story that's, say, uncomfortable & likely to result in decreased ratings because some people will find the story morally intolerable make them, in effect, part of a protection racket by suppressing the story to ensure continued profits?
And, if the media's refusal to cover said story, yet willingness to address a fabricated, projected version that spins up a conspiracy movement, placing the blame for extremely similar acts on someone else ....
Would that ensure the media legally responsible for their choices?
it's absolutely insane that any taser used would be gun-shaped and operated with a similar trigger mechanism as that of a handgun.
this is a SERIOUS design flaw. if you carry a gun, your taser should NOT be shaped or activated like a gun.
handguns & tasers must have a significantly different form factor and mechanism of interaction.
one idea:
if you have to announce taser user prior to said use...
perhaps there should be a 'charging' button on the taser that gives an audible notification to prevent confusion?
And while I agree that any officer should be able to tell the difference between the two, keep in mind that no officer will have both in their hand at the same time, so comparisons between weapon weights aren't a valid point of differentiation.
For those reading my proposal who disagree with my politics, please know that Dennis Hastert is the root of my disdain for the GOP.
Growing up a few houses down the road from him, the silent whispers of his inappropriate behaviour were omnipresent in this small town.
Silent whispers of a GOP that facilitated and enabled those inappropriate behaviours to persist, and covered up for his actions did too.
In 2005, I took a role in a campaign that ran against him to make sure those rumours finally came in to the light.
With the reports not only that he enabled Mark Foley, but kept him on as co-chair of the Missing and Exploited Children's Caucus, it was clear that there was more than just partisan politics at play. Hastert was not the only one to know about Foley -
I wonder where else Dennis Hastert drove the GMC Yukon that he had at taxpayer's expense per the "Former Speaker Statute."
Did he drive it when he went to withdraw $50,000 from Castle Bank, or maybe he rode the Yukon to the Menards parking lot - to pay for his victim's silence?
I bet there's a way we could get an answer for that one...
Since we know the dates of the withdrawals, that would help fill in some of the gaps that allowed this case to be dismissed beforehand.
Using gov't property to commit a crime is bad, right?
And crazy that the $1.7M he paid out to Individual A is just a little less than the ~$2M he billed the government for - quite a bit of which was passed to his friends.
I really think that somebody needs to be asking questions about this.