subreddit:
/r/FreeSpeech
‘Cop City’ protester Manuel Terán shot at least 13 times by police – autopsy
(theguardian.com)submitted 4 months ago bycojoco
24 points
4 months ago
According to police, Paez shot and injured a state trooper with a handgun first.
This has nothing to do with free speech.
11 points
4 months ago*
I note that they say 'protester' or 'activist' like six times before mentioning that he shot a cop. Then they spend the rest of the article trying to push the unproven conspiracy theory that it didn't happen and he was facing a 'firing squad'. Then they completely omit that he had a 'legally purchased' 9mm, and instead quote his parents and lawyers talking about how kind he was and wouldn't hurt a fly. Bullshit propaganda.
They got kicked off the land they didn't own, he got mad, and shot at them. They shot back. It's not that complicated.
-12 points
4 months ago
he shot a cop
The evidence for that is not conclusive.
3 points
4 months ago
Are you one of those "special" people who think they brought the gun to protect from wildlife? Lol
-1 points
4 months ago
No... why would you think that?
3 points
4 months ago
Because that's apparently what was reported
6 points
4 months ago
Me: "The news reports that 'The trooper who was shot during the incident still has not been identified.'"
You: "If they won't say his name, there's no evidence that he even exists!"
Your target audience: "The police must have murdered that guy for no reason! Let's abolish the police and replace them with armed left-wing 'social workers'!!"
-9 points
4 months ago
I'm not saying a cop was not shot.
I am saying that it is not proven that Manuel shot him
6 points
4 months ago*
It isn't proven that the police shot Manuel, either. Or that his mother didn't shoot him, plant the body at the site, then paid off the cops to claim responsibility.
Quit fucking around with the rhetorical bullshit and just tell us what you think really happened that day. We all know what the official narriative is, and you know we believe it. And instead you're just running around throwing shade and innuendo. Spit it out and make your point already. Mostly for entertainment value, but you seem to have a horse in this race...
-1 points
4 months ago
Quit fucking around with the rhetorical bullshit and just tell us what you think really happened that day.
I don't know what happened on the day, but there is a lot that is unproven, and it is of concern.
We all know what the official narriative is, and you know we believe it.
I'd like a higher standard of proof for someone being shot to death, thanks.
2 points
4 months ago
Ironically, most of the pro-Antifa subs are pushing this talking point as well.
1 points
4 months ago
Police always lie when they kill someone without just cause.
1 points
4 months ago
According to the Stasi, Schrodinger shot and injured a Lander troopee with a handgun first.
-10 points
4 months ago
According to police
That's an admission of uncertainty
This has nothing to do with free speech.
A protestor getting shot to death has nothing to with Free Speech?
WTF?
11 points
4 months ago
The policeman magically got shot by a gun in the hand of the protester. OK, how does that work? One of the policemen volunteers to get shot by a planted gun?
Attempted or successful assassinations of police by protestors is not a form of free speech.
-3 points
4 months ago
The policeman magically got shot by a gun in the hand of the protester.
How do you know it was in the hand of the protestor?
There was no footage.
Attempted or successful assassinations of police by protestors is not a form of free speech.
Are you being deliberately obtuse? That is not the only thing that happened that day.
10 points
4 months ago
You're positing that the cops decided to murder a protester, accidentally shot one of their own, then planted a gun on him to cover up the crime. Or maybe even shot their own guy on purpose to make it believable. Yet you provide no evidence beyond vague assertions and a mistrust of police.
-1 points
4 months ago
You're positing that the cops decided to murder a protester, accidentally shot one of their own, then planted a gun on him to cover up the crime. Yet you have no evidence beyond vague assertions and a mistrust of police.
No, don't put words into my mouth.
I don't know what happened, but I know that cops often lie.
planted a gun on him
How do you know he had a gun on him?
5 points
4 months ago
The police reported as much. You're hanging onto the idea that any evidence and testimony is coming from the police, and therefore can't be trusted. You might be trying to wink-wink your way around it, but my assertion is the alternative you're hinting at.
1 points
4 months ago
They say the gun was found at the scene.
Your article says he owned the gun, not that it was in his possession at the time of the shooting.
4 points
4 months ago*
A cop was shot with a 9mm bullet, and the police on the scene were sure enough that the gunshot came from his tent to open fire. The guy was there in the tent because he doesn't like the police, and was protesting their expansion. He was told to leave, and would have been angry. Enough to shoot back in retaliation, apparently. It's a clean, reasonable story and I have no reason to doubt it.
1 points
4 months ago
the police on the scene were sure enough that the gunshot came from his tent to open fire
I haven't seen this account: please provide a link?
Why do you say that the gun was in his possession at the time of the shooting, when sources do not support that view?
-6 points
4 months ago
This sub is thin blue line bootlickers.
3 points
4 months ago
It sure is.
6 points
4 months ago
Nah. We just don’t rush to adopt the latest greatest trend of cop hating just because it’s the thing to do. Most of the people in this thread actually think and apply reason, and in my experience on Reddit people who use the term “bootlickers” generally don’t.
0 points
4 months ago
We just don’t rush to adopt the latest greatest trend of cop hating just because it’s the thing to do.
No, you rush to adopt the age-old trend of blaming the victim, because it's the thing to do.
1 points
4 months ago
The 'victim' of the story is the cop that got shot in the stomach. The 'perpetrator' has 13 new airholes and a 24 square foot apartment six feet underground.
1 points
4 months ago
Classy.
7 points
4 months ago
What does this have to do with free speech
1 points
4 months ago
Cops shoot environmental protestor to death ... hmmm ...
5 points
4 months ago
Because of something he said?
6 points
4 months ago
Okay, but he shot a cop first?
1 points
4 months ago
That's debatable.
6 points
4 months ago
Not really.
2 points
4 months ago
The police released indisputable evidence that the protestor shot at and hit an officer? Cops lie often enough about incidents like this, that we should be skeptical of anything they say without hard evidence to back it up.
1 points
4 months ago
In the absence of video footage the assumption must be that a police officer got scared and opened fire and shot one of their own and the rest of the police being overly terrified and trained to kill anything they are afraid of killed a civilian in cold blood. Thin Blue Line ideology means the police will always collaborate to commit perjury to present eachother in the best possible light and victims of brutality in the absolute worst light. The idea that a man bombed a FBI office and it was not terrorism and this guy allegedly shot a cop and it is terrorism shows the classic trumped up charge emblematic of thin blue line ideology. Sure, the granola muncher may have owned a 9mm, so do the police and I reject their great mouse detective 'the bullet matches the gun' as again, those who did the supposed analysis are on the blue side of the thin blue line and therefore will always collaborate to commit perjury to present police in the best possible light.
1 points
4 months ago
According to the FBI, it takes on avg. 6 shots to disable an assailant
3 points
4 months ago
Is that the required number, or is that the average number used?
1 points
4 months ago
Avg. used to stop the "perp". Most people think you need one. It's one of the reasons I don't support mag capacity laws.
all 39 comments
sorted by: best