• Civility [none/use name]
      ·
      4 years ago

      I absolutely get what you're saying and think it's a good point to make and a great way to sidestep a pointless argument and go straight to the talking points if reactionaries try to bog you down in an argument about motives but in this case the murderer in question

      A) was head of her police union, which isn't a job you get by being incompetent but can be one you get by being really quick at coming up with cover stories for why killing that guy isn't murder

      B) had been a cop for 25 years

      and C) To fire her dark black glock would have had to have pressed a safety her bright yellow differently shaped, third of the weight taser didn't have.

      It's pretty clearly a blatant lie and in my experience at least pretty much everyone (even chuds when you bring up the safety thing) who isn't dead set on being willfully ignorant accepts that.

      • a_blanqui_slate [none/use name, any]
        ·
        4 years ago

        A) was head of her police union, which isn’t a job you get by being incompetent

        How are we still buying this "cream rises to the top" meritocratic nonsense in 2021? Every level of management in every company in every country is rife with people incompetent at their job.

        • TacocaTx8 [she/her]
          ·
          4 years ago

          Honestly if the people at the top of police unions are legitimately incapable of telling a glock from a taser (nevermind the whole issue with the safety), I'd think that alone would be a huge red flag.

      • CarlTheRedditor [he/him]
        ·
        4 years ago

        C) To fire her dark black glock would have had to have pressed a safety her bright yellow differently shaped, third of the weight taser didn’t have.

        This assertion is actually an example of the NYT being stereotypically bad on gun knowledge. You barely notice that the trigger safety is there (by design), it's just one fluid trigger pull action by the user.

        Any time you see a picture of a gun with little descriptions about how it works like this and it's from the NYT or WaPo or similar, just fucking smash Ctrl+F4.

        This is not to defend the cop, this is me pooping on the Times.

          • NonWonderDog [he/him]
            ·
            4 years ago

            A Glock trigger safety switches off as you pull the trigger. It's one motion. All it does is keep the trigger from being pulled if you don't put your finger on it.

              • NonWonderDog [he/him]
                ·
                4 years ago

                ?? It's not a conscious thing. It's not a lever on the side like on most handguns. Literally the trigger is shaped like a pair of scissors, and when you pull the trigger the scissors align and allow it to keep being pulled.

                Literally the trigger safety does not and can not prevent somebody from pulling the trigger. It's deliberately designed not to. It's designed to prevent the gun from being fired if the trigger gets stuck on the holster or something.

                  • NonWonderDog [he/him]
                    ·
                    4 years ago

                    Glocks are double-action, and cops carry them with a round in the chamber. If you pull the trigger it goes bang. This has always been a boring debate in the gun community about whether this counts as condition 2 or condition 0 or whatever.

                    But really no cop should be carrying both a gun and a tazer. They sold us tazers as something cops would use instead of guns. But they still have guns, and now they have a torture device too.

    • SoyViking [he/him]
      ·
      4 years ago

      If you can't tell the difference between a gun and a taser you shouldn't be trusted with a gun in the first place.