569

Mediamatter.org

you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[-] SnowdropDelusion@lemm.ee 3 points 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year ago)

Like I said:

She was gravely wronged, and what happened is entirely inexcusable. However, statements that confuse people on the facts of the situation do not help the cause.

[-] bauhaus@lemmy.ml 3 points 1 year ago

statements that confuse people on the facts of the situation

where did I do this?

[-] SnowdropDelusion@lemm.ee 2 points 1 year ago

Well, for one thing it turns out Breonna Taylor wasn't even asleep.

Source: Courier Journal - Local Newspaper

[-] bauhaus@lemmy.ml 4 points 1 year ago

getting your door kicked in by a gang of cops tends to wake you up

[-] SnowdropDelusion@lemm.ee 2 points 1 year ago

I'm referring to the witness statements given by Walker.

[-] bauhaus@lemmy.ml 2 points 1 year ago

what statements of his say that she wasn’t sleeping?

[-] SnowdropDelusion@lemm.ee 2 points 1 year ago

I don't know. How about the one where he said they were watching a movie?

[-] bauhaus@lemmy.ml 2 points 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year ago)

people fall asleep watching movies all the time, especially late at night which this was.

I don’t see any statement claiming she wasn’t sleeping, as you claim.

[-] SnowdropDelusion@lemm.ee 3 points 1 year ago

Look, it's not like we have a recording of their bedroom at the time of the incident. Do you have a source for your claim that she was asleep?

[-] bauhaus@lemmy.ml 2 points 1 year ago

I’m not responsible for your lack of evidence. now you even admit you don’t have evidence to back up your claims, and you accuse ME of bad faith?

lmao

[-] SnowdropDelusion@lemm.ee 2 points 1 year ago

Look, I think it is clear that there is no amount of evidence that will make you change your mind on this.

Walker clearly said they were watching a movie, which you choose to interpret as they were probably asleep. I choose to interpret it more literally as they were actually watching a movie.

The preponderance of evidence suggests they were watching a movie, and there is no evidence saying they were asleep, only that they "could" have been asleep.

[-] bauhaus@lemmy.ml 2 points 1 year ago

if you had presented any evidence, it might have, but you didn't

[-] SnowdropDelusion@lemm.ee 2 points 1 year ago

This just in, witness testimony ≠ evidence.

[-] bauhaus@lemmy.ml 2 points 1 year ago

as soon as you have any that says, “she wasn’t sleeping”, let me know

[-] SnowdropDelusion@lemm.ee 3 points 1 year ago

You know whoever types the last comment has clearly won right? /s

[-] bauhaus@lemmy.ml 2 points 1 year ago

that sounds like a personal problem for you

[-] SnowdropDelusion@lemm.ee 2 points 1 year ago

Oh, I'm just having fun here. Sorry if this is upsetting to you. I do like having the last comment though I have to admit.

[-] bauhaus@lemmy.ml 2 points 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year ago)

Sorry if this is upsetting to you

projecting your feelings onto me isn’t healthy

I do like having the last comment though I have to admit.

sound like another personal problem

[-] SnowdropDelusion@lemm.ee 3 points 1 year ago

Lol. I do have feelings, I'm not upset, I'm definitely not projecting, but I may be misidentifying your feelings.

Still, I am certain you want the last word in our conversation.

this post was submitted on 13 Aug 2023
569 points (100.0% liked)

politics

19050 readers
3475 users here now

Welcome to the discussion of US Politics!

Rules:

  1. Post only links to articles, Title must fairly describe link contents. If your title differs from the site’s, it should only be to add context or be more descriptive. Do not post entire articles in the body or in the comments.

Links must be to the original source, not an aggregator like Google Amp, MSN, or Yahoo.

Example:

  1. Articles must be relevant to politics. Links must be to quality and original content. Articles should be worth reading. Clickbait, stub articles, and rehosted or stolen content are not allowed. Check your source for Reliability and Bias here.
  2. Be civil, No violations of TOS. It’s OK to say the subject of an article is behaving like a (pejorative, pejorative). It’s NOT OK to say another USER is (pejorative). Strong language is fine, just not directed at other members. Engage in good-faith and with respect! This includes accusing another user of being a bot or paid actor. Trolling is uncivil and is grounds for removal and/or a community ban.
  3. No memes, trolling, or low-effort comments. Reposts, misinformation, off-topic, trolling, or offensive.
  4. Vote based on comment quality, not agreement. This community aims to foster discussion; please reward people for putting effort into articulating their viewpoint, even if you disagree with it.
  5. No hate speech, slurs, celebrating death, advocating violence, or abusive language. This will result in a ban. Usernames containing racist, or inappropriate slurs will be banned without warning

We ask that the users report any comment or post that violate the rules, to use critical thinking when reading, posting or commenting. Users that post off-topic spam, advocate violence, have multiple comments or posts removed, weaponize reports or violate the code of conduct will be banned.

All posts and comments will be reviewed on a case-by-case basis. This means that some content that violates the rules may be allowed, while other content that does not violate the rules may be removed. The moderators retain the right to remove any content and ban users.

That's all the rules!

Civic Links

Register To Vote

Citizenship Resource Center

Congressional Awards Program

Federal Government Agencies

Library of Congress Legislative Resources

The White House

U.S. House of Representatives

U.S. Senate

Partnered Communities:

News

World News

Business News

Political Discussion

Ask Politics

Military News

Global Politics

Moderate Politics

Progressive Politics

UK Politics

Canadian Politics

Australian Politics

New Zealand Politics

founded 1 year ago
MODERATORS