219

An attempted carjacking Saturday night left a 13-year-old dead after a security officer shot him; another boy, 12, is in custody

you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[-] Melkath@kbin.social 5 points 1 year ago

But no lives were actually threatened.

An unarmed 13 year old who could pantomime met a grown ass US Marshal.

[-] Fosheze@lemmy.world 22 points 1 year ago

Once again the actual intent doesn't matter because that was only known to them. The only people who knew if they actually had weapons or not were them and you're going to fault people for believing them when they said they did. They were threatening another persons life (once again no one knew they were faking it except them) that is the only thing that maters in this situation.

They knowingly made the marshal believe they had weapons, was the marshal just supposed to let themself get shot? There are a lot of things to criticize US police for, but protecting themselves when there is a clear, deliberate, and imminent threat on their lives is not one of them.

Yes it's sad that a troubled kid with an underdeveloped brain made a stupid decision and was killed for it. But that doesn't make it ok to victim blame someone for defending themself from a threat upon their life.

[-] Melkath@kbin.social 4 points 1 year ago

"Once again the actual intent doesn’t "

The fuck it doesn't, you absolute goddam monster.

[-] Fosheze@lemmy.world 17 points 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year ago)

Ok rather than childish name calling, explain to me how that marshal had any way of knowing what their intent was. Also it is convient how you left the last part of that sentence off.

[-] sugartits@lemmy.world 4 points 1 year ago

Name calling is all he knows.

Well, that and the very clearly made up stories

[-] wanderingmagus@lemmy.world 7 points 1 year ago

Seems most people here think you are the monster.

[-] Harvey656@lemmy.world 4 points 1 year ago

That person cannot know the intent, only that it appears their life is threatened, your shortsighted if you cannot see that.

[-] SheeEttin@lemmy.world 12 points 1 year ago

Courts tend to disagree with you. Even if a weapon is simulated, if used as a threat, it's often considered the same as actually having the weapon, because the victim is threatened just the same.

https://www.justice.gov/archives/jm/criminal-resource-manual-1351-assaultuse-dangerous-weapon-during-bank-robbery

[-] sugartits@lemmy.world 3 points 1 year ago

pardon me sir, please may I verify the lethality of your weapon before we continue this discourse?

[-] sugartits@lemmy.world 5 points 1 year ago

If I poke you in your back with a stick and say "do exactly as I say and you might, just might, live through this"

Are you seriously going to:

  • go "nah bro, I don't believe you, go home, you're drunk" or
  • are you going to take me very fucking seriously and not only comply but also try to think really hard and fast about getting out of dodge using any (and I do mean any) means necessary because you reasonably assume I have a loaded gun pressed against your back?

If you answer the first option, then we stop now, as you're clearly being dishonest.

[-] Melkath@kbin.social 1 points 1 year ago

Well... you won't believe me, but when I was walking home through an alley at night after my community College classes, and I had a .22 pressed into my back shoulder with a voice saying "don't fucking move", I turned around (pretty slowly in fact), took the gun (quite casually in fact) and then watched the dude run.

Then I called 911, turned the gun over to the cops, and filed a report.

I didn't have a gun myself, and I didn't shoot at his back with his gun.

So ya... I see what you are trying to do, but personally, I think I'm just pretty dumb and not a pussy.

Cops told me the guy was a simple mugger who had been working the block for about a month, and I should have just given him my wallet, but they also seemed pretty jazzed to have his gun.

[-] sugartits@lemmy.world 6 points 1 year ago

you won't believe me

Correct. I did not.

I think I'm just pretty dumb

At least we agree on something

Cops told me the guy was a simple mugger who had been working the block for about a month, and I should have just given him my wallet, but they also seemed pretty jazzed to have his gun.

And then everyone clapped

[-] Melkath@kbin.social 1 points 1 year ago

Great job sugartits.

You won the internet with your "he should have murdered that unarmed 13 year old" rhetoric.

Feel like a big boy now?

Cus all I see is you and your kin. A bunch of piss babies running round with your guns.

No mass shootings ended. But yall real efficient bout murdering brown children.

[-] sugartits@lemmy.world 4 points 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year ago)

Yet again you've missed the point. And now you reply with emotion and anger instead of thinking, even for a moment.

I can tell you again and again, as others have done. However, sadly I cannot make you understand.

For the record, I do not own any weapons. Never have and probably never will.

[-] Broodjefissa@lemmy.world 3 points 1 year ago

And there's the idiot bringing race into this

[-] pozbo@lemmy.world 2 points 1 year ago

You argue like a child. Assuming you're a tankie.

this post was submitted on 02 Nov 2023
219 points (100.0% liked)

News

23644 readers
3319 users here now

Welcome to the News community!

Rules:

1. Be civil


Attack the argument, not the person. No racism/sexism/bigotry. Good faith argumentation only. 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. Do not respond to rule-breaking content; report it and move on.


2. All posts should contain a source (url) that is as reliable and unbiased as possible and must only contain one link.


Obvious right or left wing sources will be removed at the mods discretion. We have an actively updated blocklist, which you can see here: https://lemmy.world/post/2246130 if you feel like any website is missing, contact the mods. Supporting links can be added in comments or posted seperately but not to the post body.


3. No bots, spam or self-promotion.


Only approved bots, which follow the guidelines for bots set by the instance, are allowed.


4. Post titles should be the same as the article used as source.


Posts which titles don’t match the source won’t be removed, but the autoMod will notify you, and if your title misrepresents the original article, the post will be deleted. If the site changed their headline, the bot might still contact you, just ignore it, we won’t delete your post.


5. Only recent news is allowed.


Posts must be news from the most recent 30 days.


6. All posts must be news articles.


No opinion pieces, Listicles, editorials or celebrity gossip is allowed. All posts will be judged on a case-by-case basis.


7. No duplicate posts.


If a source you used was already posted by someone else, the autoMod will leave a message. Please remove your post if the autoMod is correct. If the post that matches your post is very old, we refer you to rule 5.


8. Misinformation is prohibited.


Misinformation / propaganda is strictly prohibited. Any comment or post containing or linking to misinformation will be removed. If you feel that your post has been removed in error, credible sources must be provided.


9. No link shorteners.


The auto mod will contact you if a link shortener is detected, please delete your post if they are right.


10. Don't copy entire article in your post body


For copyright reasons, you are not allowed to copy an entire article into your post body. This is an instance wide rule, that is strictly enforced in this community.

founded 2 years ago
MODERATORS