politics
Welcome to the discussion of US Politics!
Rules:
- 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:
- 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.
- 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.
- No memes, trolling, or low-effort comments. Reposts, misinformation, off-topic, trolling, or offensive. Similarly, if you see posts along these lines, do not engage. Report them, block them, and live a happier life than they do. We see too many slapfights that boil down to "Mom! He's bugging me!" and "I'm not touching you!" Going forward, slapfights will result in removed comments and temp bans to cool off.
- 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.
- 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
• Congressional Awards Program
• Library of Congress Legislative Resources
• U.S. House of Representatives
Partnered Communities:
• News
view the rest of the comments
Exactly. The level of cultural brainwashing in this thread is insane. You don't just let any random volunteer perform jobs like this.
Volunteers were told not to carry a weapon because of outcomes like this. They're not trained professionals, and they're definitely not action heroes. And now someone has to explain to a child, a parent, a partner, etc., that the civillian death here was just an unfortunate outcome of a wonderful American citizen protecting his country. It's actually fucking despicible.
You'd rather the protesters rely on the police to do this kind of thing? The group shooting them with rubber bullets and tear gas canisters?
Sorry, how many protesters were shot and killed by law enforcement this weekend?
Listen, I take your point, but the killing of random civilians isn't better.
https://www.nbcnews.com/news/us-news/video-shows-florida-deputy-repeatedly-shoot-man-thinking-falling-acorn-rcna138829
Believing police in the USA are anything near well trained or disciplined is naive at best. This incident is only one amongst many of the police using their firearm irresponsibly.
https://www.usatoday.com/story/news/factcheck/2020/08/28/fact-check-cosmetology-vs-police-training-comparison-lacks-context/5653808002/
As always please read the articles for the full picture and nuance.
Wisconsin is not an outlier in this. There are many jobs in the USA that take more training than the police which do not carry deadly weapons and have blanket immunity to use them.
Correct, which is why it's not an opinion I expressed.
My statement was that giving untrained, undisciplined people weapons is a bad thing. The point was to address the whataboutism of "they're out there shooting us right now," not to defend the absolute joke that is police in the United States.
It's hard to tell from this one report but it doesn't seem like this was a particularly bad outcome. Of course it's unfortunate that a bystander was killed but it sounds like they successfully prevented an even worse outcome. Besides, there are tons of stories of cops injuring or killing more than one bystander in situations like this. When it comes down to it I'm more inclined to trust the judgment of a commited private citizen than the police.
Now that I've discovered the rest of the article beyond the wall of ads, I agree. I had partial information, and wrongly believed it was all the information, as the blob of ads on my mobile device was a whole screen. That, combined with being on the way out the door in the morning, led me to believe I had read everything and everyone in this thread is insane. Thenn, someone made a specific reference to something I hadn't read and I was prompted to go look, discovering there is much more article beyond our corporate sponsored break.
I legit thought they scared a dude with a rifle into fleeing, and then shot at him instead of letting him get away.
Hundreds have been shot by law enforcement the last couple weeks at various protests.
Let's try out the counterfactual: the assailant pulls out a rifle, aims it into the crowd, and nobody else in the immediate vicinity is armed. What happens next?
There's a small chance he was just trying to scare people and disrupt the protest, but that sounds like the prelude to a mass shooting to me. It's likely many more people would have died in that case. We can't know of course and neither could the security volunteer; he had to make a hard decision in a split second in an emergency. He had to weigh the risk of shooting when he did against the risk of waiting, and he had the disadvantage of fighting a rifle with a pistol; it's much easier to shoot accurately with a rifle, and the ammunition is more deadly.
The dude with the rifle was running. That whole argument is fine when someone is draw weapons and making threats, but they shot at someone trying to flee the scene after causing no harm and killed an innocent. Everything else is imaginary justification.
EDIT: Wondering where the hell everyone else got so much more information, I reloaded the article, scrolled past the ad wall and found the rest of the text, which makes clear that the dude with the rifle pulled his gun into a firing position on the crowd. Fair enough, I was wrong and the citizen was right to have taken the shot. I blame the ad wall for convincing me that the news article was over.
According to the reports I've read, including in the toplevel article here, the sequence of events is:
It's easy to conflate running with fleeing, but running toward a group of people with a rifle pointed at them is charging, not fleeing.
He was running ... TOWARDS the crowd.
That explains the confusion. Do you need a recommendation for an ad blocker?
Apparently using an adblocker and reading an entire article is American exceptionalism now.