One of my favorite things ever in the history of things.
"staffing shortage" stories have been part of the copaganda corpus since 2020 (wonder why? maybe because PEOPLE ARE DEAD from a once-in-a-century PANDEMIC??? Nah... must be the tone of police critics!) Anyway, keep your eyes on this narrative formation.
As much as I would like to take full, individual credit for finally succeeding in rightly vilifying police, maybe there aren't as many cops today as there were three years ago... BECAUSE THEY DIED OF COVID???
Unarmed. Colorado Springs, CO | "officers "gave verbal commands, which the suspect refused to comply with," the entry said. Police said a taser was deployed but was ineffective and that at least one officer then fired at the suspect, hitting him." gazette.com/news/officer-i…
But Craig, the article doesn't say he was "unarmed." How do you know he was? Because it doesn't mention anything conceivable as a weapon whatsoever and if police had anything at all they could claim, it'd be the very first the thing they said to their media partners.
(Also, they initially used a taser. So at least one cop on the scene didn't think the situation rose to the level to justify lethal force. And that usually means the person they shot was either entirely unarmed or just had an object of some kind, bladed or not, in their hands.)
Anyway, if it matters, 100% certain there wasn't a firearm involved besides the ones cops brought and used.
Glennard Herndon, killed by police in Jackson, TN | Since I know cops aren't any good at anything, least of all tactics, I always read "No officers were injured during the incident" as an admission that there wasn't really a threat to them at all. wreg.com/news/local/man…
UPDATE: Fort Worth, TX | Today in "I told you so." OBVIOUSLY.
"It turned out to be a pepper spray device that police say is designed to look like a handgun." fox4news.com/news/fort-wort…
It was obviously never a firearm and no journalist who doesn't say that openly and immediately *and challenge police directly* is anything but a propagandist for police.
If you ever see "appeared to be" (itself pretty extreme and partisan editiorializing by media on behalf of police; "appeared" to whom? to the police. it didn't objectively appear as anything, it *was* a pepper spray device), you can bet it wasn't a gun.
Don't know why I linked that twice, but whatever. You can also bet police didn't actually believe the person in crisis had a real firearm. They *knew* whatever it was wasn't a gun. They knew they were dealing with someone who needed help. They still shot them.
Deptford Township, NJ | "Twenty-four-year-old Mitchell Negron of Deptford died after being shot following a foot pursuit and struggle between a Deptford police officer and Negron," msn.com/en-us/news/cri…
Oxnard, CA | "the man was wielding a five foot long steel bar and refused to comply with verbal commands... two of the officers drew their tasers and one officer drew his service weapon. Ultimately, the officer with their weapon drawn" killed him. keyt.com/news/ventura-c…
Three cops. Two draw their tasers. Don't even use them. The one who drew his gun shot and killed the man. I don't know how that is justified, even under police's own standards. Two "reasonable officers on the scene" did not shoot guns. They didn't even shoot tasers.
How the copaganda sausage gets made. A little flattery. A little access. And, more often than not, local reporters happily play ball with the offer to join forces with power on a future story rather than continue pushing...
So fucking manipulative, it's amazing she did it on camera.
Like... it's so casual and commonplace for her to throw out a little quid pro quo, "hey, ease up on this and we'll collaborate on something mutually-beneficial in the future" that she didn't even hesitate to do it *on camera.*
we've been telling women what to wear (more *or* less, based on our desires and effort to express our power/control over them) for all of human existence and it's the same misogyny either way. objectification or something, i dunno. lmao
Neat First Amendment you have there. Would be a shame if a Supreme Court were deliberately installed in a specific, rightwing project spanning decades precisely for their commitment to not giving a flying fuck about it or precedent, either.
This has to be the least credible moment in my lifetime to suggest that civil litigation, The Constitution or "the rule of law" is going to bring a just result.
Peter Hitchens, like other fNazi apologists and distorters before him, is not to be debated.
His brother sucked, too.
Reminder that the "New Atheists" (Christopher Hitchens, Sam Harris, etc...) were and are (where still alive) racist warmongering fucking garbage. Peter Hitchens sucks. Absolutely. But please remember that Chris sucked, too. thefreelibrary.com/WAR+ON+TERROR%…
The concept you're struggling with here is the foundational anti-Blackness of the United States. Ain't no "I think" to be thought. This is exactly (if limited in scope) where it came from.
Refusal and delegitimation of the first Black President ("birther" conspiracies), himself only a thin cover for the same banks & fascists who've always run this country and were in open crisis in 2008, but even that deft counterinsurgency move was intolerable to white Amerikkka.
Then the Ferguson uprising saw the proliferation of "woke" directly from the Black community into the mainstream discourse. The white panic reaction to that (and Baltimore and Baton Rouge, etc.) was an openly-fascist, Blue Line/Lives cult with its own icons and vigilante ethos.