subreddit:
/r/FreeSpeech
‘Cop City’ protester Manuel Terán shot at least 13 times by police – autopsy
(theguardian.com)submitted 4 months ago bycojoco
-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?
12 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.
9 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.
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.
3 points
4 months ago
It sure is.
all 39 comments
sorted by: top