I haven’t heard a statement from the other side of the story, but it seems you have. So please, inform us all. Otherwise, your speculation based in distrust and hate is moot.
We only have one source of facts at the moment, with a promise for a more detailed followup so, yeah, it carries weight.
I don’t know why a 13yo would do such a thing, or why they even had a replica gun. I’m not them. I feel sorry for them, but according to the facts I know right now, it was a bad choice. I am especially interested if the red tip were removed designating a toy. As the article references a replica, not a toy, I wonder if that had some influence in the outcome.
I am fully prepared to change my view if new evidence persuades me.
If you’d read the article, the police admitted that they are lying about it:
The department said it is also aware of a video circulating on social media of the incident but warned that it does not portray the incident in its entirety.
When the police say ‘believe us not the evidence’, that means they’re lying.
When the police kill an unarmed child and then try to justify their actions, they’re going to have to lie because there’s no justifiable reason to kill an unarmed child. Hence claiming that the dead child both fled and menanced them and pre-discrediting the evidence against them.
There’s an ocean of examples of police lying to cover up their killings. They lie so often that they got the courts to confirm they have no duty to tell the truth.
Your radical denial of where all the evidence points is not as moderate as you seem to believe.
I haven’t heard a statement from the other side of the story, but it seems you have. So please, inform us all. Otherwise, your speculation based in distrust and hate is moot.
We only have one source of facts at the moment, with a promise for a more detailed followup so, yeah, it carries weight.
I don’t know why a 13yo would do such a thing, or why they even had a replica gun. I’m not them. I feel sorry for them, but according to the facts I know right now, it was a bad choice. I am especially interested if the red tip were removed designating a toy. As the article references a replica, not a toy, I wonder if that had some influence in the outcome.
I am fully prepared to change my view if new evidence persuades me.
Nobody will hear a statement from the other side of the story because the other side is a dead 13 year old.
According to the article there were 2 youths.
There is another side.
If you’d read the article, the police admitted that they are lying about it:
When the police say ‘believe us not the evidence’, that means they’re lying.
WOW do you like your own narrative.
That’s not an admission to lying whatsoever.
That is literally what it says it is: that the video circulating online does not portray the entire incident.
Any armchair editor knows how to add start/stop points to a clip. It could be to emphasize a point, exclude content, or simply meet time constraints.
People these days… so easily radicalized. Take a breather and wait for more info.
When the police kill an unarmed child and then try to justify their actions, they’re going to have to lie because there’s no justifiable reason to kill an unarmed child. Hence claiming that the dead child both fled and menanced them and pre-discrediting the evidence against them.
There’s an ocean of examples of police lying to cover up their killings. They lie so often that they got the courts to confirm they have no duty to tell the truth.
Your radical denial of where all the evidence points is not as moderate as you seem to believe.
Unarmed?
Literally armed with a pellet gun. It’s in the title!
Yes, unarmed. As in not bearing a weapon. A toy is not a weapon and poses no threat at all.
That’s why toys have red tips. If there is no red tip, as in a replica, it looks and assumed to be real.