Okay, I’ll defend what I said so that it’s clear that I brought it up not to troll or engage in bad faith but as an example of the effects of state violence on public trust.
Regardless of weather or not you believe the states defense of its agents actions, you can’t deny that the woman who was shot was unarmed (I think I saw some news articles trying to call her armed because she had a pocketknife, but come on!) and that there were alternatives to deadly force available. I saw them discussed online and heard even my very vote blue no matter who style lib neighbors say them when we talked about the news.
Some of the stuff I remember hearing people say was “push her back through”, “push her back through with a stick” “let her come through and arrest her” “beat people trying to come through with a stick” and “shoot into the air/ground to disperse them”.
I’m not bringing those things up to then give you the opportunity to ask me to defend them, but to provide examples of normal everyday people’s responses to seeing the states agents kill someone who looked like them or someone they knew and only became more sympathetic as her background was reported on and pictures of her from before January 6 surfaced.
I also know that she was brought up in the news as a victim of state violence and her name was used as a kind of dogwhistle for stop the steal type right wingers and even normal republican types for little while.
I don’t remember it because I don’t run in those circles but it had a cadence like “Sharon bobbit” or something.
The effect of that one death was very polarizing and did little to build broader trust in government except for with people who took the controversial “I don’t like those people/they’re criminals so good riddance” view.
So that’s why I brought it up and specifically said that she posed no threat. Not because I wanted to defend the people who did January 6 or the ones who use her name as a shibboleth but because it’s a good example of state violence suppressing January 6 prompting a negative response.
I appreciate that you expounded on your overall point, but I don’t think you defended what I quoted at all, and that’s the only bit I think you are really on the hook to defend here.
where she presented no threat at all
I won’t list all the examples others already gave you of how easy it is to see that from the point of view of anyone on the other side of that specific door at that specific time, she was indeed a threat. That’s not “accepting the government’s justification” that’s using my own eyeballs and not pretending I don’t understand the context of what was happening. Anyone claiming she’s not a threat at that moment is willfully ignoring every other detail of the situation.
I’m so sorry for not being clearer about the meaning my words have.
In the context of a shooting by cops I’m using “no threat” to mean no threat that merits deadly force, not that it wasnt a crazy situation.
My point was never to say that the situation wasn’t unique or that fear or feeling threatened never factored in, but the situation in which that woman was shot didn’t constitute a threat to anyone that merited deadly force.
She was unarmed (again, I remember some news trying to say that her pocketknife constituted a weapon but whatever), was climbing in through a barrier that she had to be lifted up to reach and could have been restrained with several different tools or techniques at the disposal of the cop that shot her.
If there were no other options available then a person could believe otherwise and plenty of cops have gotten off for killings because they said their service weapon was their only option.
I was hoping it would be clear what I meant by “no threat” when I explained how lots of people had said all those things they thought the cop could have done, but that’s my fault.
In the context of a shooting by cops I’m using “no threat” to mean no threat that merits deadly force, not that it wasnt a crazy situation.
The only thing you have that even remotely begins to resemble a point is that she posed no VISIBLE threat. Which, when you’re protecting high value targets, is fucking meaningless.
If you were a world leader and saw a mob of angry empty headed idiots coming towards you while their friends outside are talking about hanging one of your superiors, are you really going to pretend that’s not a threat?
but the situation in which that woman was shot didn’t constitute a threat to anyone that merited deadly force.
It absolutely did, and deadly force was merited well before it was used. Again, a mob of people chanting they wanted to hang a politician violently broke into the antechamber for many politicians that may have carried concealed weapons or explosives.
Just because you’re not capable of seeing why deadly force was more than justified doesn’t mean it wasn’t, and your arguments willfully ignore the context and surrounding factors that harm your argument
My point was never to say that the situation wasn’t unique or that fear or feeling threatened never factored in, but the situation in which that woman was shot didn’t constitute a threat to anyone that merited deadly force.
There was no reason to believe that though. Now I’ll make the list anyway. First person at head of mob to come through that window. Bomb in backback was possible. (Members of congress were still escaping from the area), concealed weapon was possible, either of those things on the next person behind her were possible. She was in one of the most protected areas of our government, at the head of a mob that had beaten their way into the building, and had built a noose outside while cheering for the death of the vice president. She was a threat.
Okay, I’ll defend what I said so that it’s clear that I brought it up not to troll or engage in bad faith but as an example of the effects of state violence on public trust.
Regardless of weather or not you believe the states defense of its agents actions, you can’t deny that the woman who was shot was unarmed (I think I saw some news articles trying to call her armed because she had a pocketknife, but come on!) and that there were alternatives to deadly force available. I saw them discussed online and heard even my very vote blue no matter who style lib neighbors say them when we talked about the news.
Some of the stuff I remember hearing people say was “push her back through”, “push her back through with a stick” “let her come through and arrest her” “beat people trying to come through with a stick” and “shoot into the air/ground to disperse them”.
I’m not bringing those things up to then give you the opportunity to ask me to defend them, but to provide examples of normal everyday people’s responses to seeing the states agents kill someone who looked like them or someone they knew and only became more sympathetic as her background was reported on and pictures of her from before January 6 surfaced.
I also know that she was brought up in the news as a victim of state violence and her name was used as a kind of dogwhistle for stop the steal type right wingers and even normal republican types for little while.
I don’t remember it because I don’t run in those circles but it had a cadence like “Sharon bobbit” or something.
The effect of that one death was very polarizing and did little to build broader trust in government except for with people who took the controversial “I don’t like those people/they’re criminals so good riddance” view.
So that’s why I brought it up and specifically said that she posed no threat. Not because I wanted to defend the people who did January 6 or the ones who use her name as a shibboleth but because it’s a good example of state violence suppressing January 6 prompting a negative response.
I appreciate that you expounded on your overall point, but I don’t think you defended what I quoted at all, and that’s the only bit I think you are really on the hook to defend here.
I won’t list all the examples others already gave you of how easy it is to see that from the point of view of anyone on the other side of that specific door at that specific time, she was indeed a threat. That’s not “accepting the government’s justification” that’s using my own eyeballs and not pretending I don’t understand the context of what was happening. Anyone claiming she’s not a threat at that moment is willfully ignoring every other detail of the situation.
I’m so sorry for not being clearer about the meaning my words have.
In the context of a shooting by cops I’m using “no threat” to mean no threat that merits deadly force, not that it wasnt a crazy situation.
My point was never to say that the situation wasn’t unique or that fear or feeling threatened never factored in, but the situation in which that woman was shot didn’t constitute a threat to anyone that merited deadly force.
She was unarmed (again, I remember some news trying to say that her pocketknife constituted a weapon but whatever), was climbing in through a barrier that she had to be lifted up to reach and could have been restrained with several different tools or techniques at the disposal of the cop that shot her.
If there were no other options available then a person could believe otherwise and plenty of cops have gotten off for killings because they said their service weapon was their only option.
I was hoping it would be clear what I meant by “no threat” when I explained how lots of people had said all those things they thought the cop could have done, but that’s my fault.
The only thing you have that even remotely begins to resemble a point is that she posed no VISIBLE threat. Which, when you’re protecting high value targets, is fucking meaningless.
If you were a world leader and saw a mob of angry empty headed idiots coming towards you while their friends outside are talking about hanging one of your superiors, are you really going to pretend that’s not a threat?
It absolutely did, and deadly force was merited well before it was used. Again, a mob of people chanting they wanted to hang a politician violently broke into the antechamber for many politicians that may have carried concealed weapons or explosives.
Just because you’re not capable of seeing why deadly force was more than justified doesn’t mean it wasn’t, and your arguments willfully ignore the context and surrounding factors that harm your argument
There was no reason to believe that though. Now I’ll make the list anyway. First person at head of mob to come through that window. Bomb in backback was possible. (Members of congress were still escaping from the area), concealed weapon was possible, either of those things on the next person behind her were possible. She was in one of the most protected areas of our government, at the head of a mob that had beaten their way into the building, and had built a noose outside while cheering for the death of the vice president. She was a threat.