• Welcome to the Internet Infidels Discussion Board.

"I think it's going to be a closed casket, homie"

 
 
 
D

Derec

Contributor
Joined
Aug 19, 2002
Messages
28,964
Location
Atlanta, GA
Basic Beliefs
atheist
There was another police killing a few days ago in Indianapolis. The shootee was one Dreasjon "Sean" Reed, 21, who led the police on a high speed chase and a foot pursuit (both of which he broadcast on Facebook Live) which is when he exchanged fire with a police officer culminating in his death.

So now there are protests in his honor.
Police use pepper balls while arresting man during protest of fatal police shooting

And the case is being linked to that of Ahmaud Arbery and is even being called a "lynching".

Why The Killings Of Sean Reed & Ahmaud Arbery Are Being Called Lynchings

Refinery29 said:
Sean Reed being killed by police last night was just as much a modern-day lynching. Neither civilians nor police have the authority to execute people they suspect of crimes.”
Click to expand...

And almost 40k idiots signed an online petition where Reed was called "unarmed" and demanding that the police officer should be charged with "murder".

That despite the fact that Reed shot at police.
Indianapolis Police Officer Shoots Man in Livestreamed Killing. Here's What to Know
Time said:
Gunshots are heard shortly after that — over a dozen in total. According to police, there “was an exchange of gunfire between the driver and the officer.” While Reed was shot, the officer engaged with him was not.[...]
Authorities say a loaded gun was found near the victim; Taylor noted that there has since been speculation online that Reed was not the gun’s owner.
“While we continue to process the scene I believe it’s reasonable to believe that this gun was the individual’s,” Chief Taylor said. “It is a distinct looking gun… we are aware of photos of the driver holding a similar distinct looking weapon.” He added that police found 15 shell casings at the scene, and claimed that the gun police believe to be Reed’s was fired at least twice.
Click to expand...

This would be the "distinct looking weapon".
EXk-lvRUYAI-K__.jpg
Note the extended magazine!

hqdefault.jpg

But ma baby didn't do nuthin!
Family of Sean Reed Denies He Had Weapon When Indianapolis Police Shot Him
Denial is not just a river in Egypt!
 
Last edited:
People deny facts in these types of shootings all the time. Sometimes it is the family and friends of the victims. Sometimes it is the kneejerk defenders of the shooters. And, of course, sometimes it is bigots and/or racists on either side.

I suppose it is part of human nature.
 
You mean like how republicans deny responsibility for anything?
 
How's supporting funding for a genocide in Yemen going, republicans?
 
But mah baby Trump didn't do nuthin
 
With that video, I am not surprised many are under the impression he didn't fire on police. He goes down fairly hard, seemingly face first, then very shortly after a volley of shots are fired (13?), a pause, then two more shots. It's not impossible he fired on the officer behind him, but that's a fairly quick response after just having been tased and knocked on your face.

In the video, you can actually see his firearm tucked into his waistband, so he did have it on him. He does appear to remove it from his waistband. What he does after isn't clear. He seems to have something his left hand briefly, but it can't be identified as the firearm unless he was holding it in a strange way or he wrapped it in something. A moment later, he seems swap the phone back to that hand and the other hand doesn't seem to be holding a firearm, or if he is, he's holding it in his fingertips--we can't see his whole hand. It's hard to tell if he was still carrying it or if he threw it away.

In terms of the family's response, they just lost a child/ brother. I don't know if they were claiming he did nothing wrong. The article linked says the father doesn't believe he fired on the officer, which is something none of us can confirm or deny. The sister says nothing regarding whether her brother did anything wrong or not. She didn't believe he should have been shot to death after he had already been tased to the ground. Personally, if I found out my brother had been shot down by police, I'm certain my brain would be absolutely fucking reeling, trying to make sense of it. Trying to reconcile the brother I knew with that outcome.

With three people dead in police incidents in an eight hour period, this incident is adding more pressure for the the IMPD to get body cams. I don't know how much benefit body cams have been in other jurisdictions, but it seems in this case it would have cleared a lot of things up.
 
laughing dog said:
People deny facts in these types of shootings all the time. Sometimes it is the family and friends of the victims. Sometimes it is the kneejerk defenders of the shooters. And, of course, sometimes it is bigots and/or racists on either side.

I suppose it is part of human nature.
Click to expand...

I always prefer to take the "time traveling Hitler" position with these sorts of things.

Obviously, some asshole with a deadly weapon got shot, here. It has no similarity to a number of other shootings re: the "time traveling Hitler test"

Namely, the TTH says "was there evidence that the person was TTH?"

Simply speaking, if there is no immediate grounds for the shooter to know they were shooting time traveling hitler, then they were "just murdering someone". It doesn't matter if the person they murdered is time traveling Hitler or not, they are still a filthy murderer if they shot him without knowing.

On one account, we have someone being shot by someone who does not have positive ID that they are shooting TTH, especially since that person is unarmed and just jogging down the street. On the other account, you have someone armed with a deadly weapon brandishing it at actual law enforcement.

These are not the same.

So I don't give a shit about the lives these people lead before people shoot them; it is not material to the immediate decision to shoot. What is material is what was positively verified before and during the incident.

So can we NOT have bad faith arguments about "he was TTH" please? I really think TTH arguments of "it was justified" ought be banned if the shooter didn't immediately know that. Assumptions that someone is TTH because they have a chitty mustache are not enough.
 
Skip ahead to 14 minutes in on the video.

It's very hard to tell what happened but I get the impression that just before the shooting he pulled his gun out, but I see no indication he pointed it at the cops.

However there is another possibility here--he might have violated basic rule #3. If he was tased with his finger on the trigger he likely fired and that could easily provoke the cops to "return" fire.
 
Loren Pechtel said:
Skip ahead to 14 minutes in on the video.

It's very hard to tell what happened but I get the impression that just before the shooting he pulled his gun out, but I see no indication he pointed it at the cops.

However there is another possibility here--he might have violated basic rule #3. If he was tased with his finger on the trigger he likely fired and that could easily provoke the cops to "return" fire.
Click to expand...

Rule #3? Dude, you have one rule for justifying a shooting by the Police... ‘If there was a shooting, it was justified.’
 
Jimmy Higgins said:
Loren Pechtel said:
Skip ahead to 14 minutes in on the video.

It's very hard to tell what happened but I get the impression that just before the shooting he pulled his gun out, but I see no indication he pointed it at the cops.

However there is another possibility here--he might have violated basic rule #3. If he was tased with his finger on the trigger he likely fired and that could easily provoke the cops to "return" fire.
Click to expand...

Rule #3? Dude, you have one rule for justifying a shooting by the Police... ‘If there was a shooting, it was justified.’
Click to expand...

Basic rule 3: https://www.gunsweek.com/en/technics/articles/4-rules-gun-safety
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom