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) 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.
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.
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.
In that case then yeah, great post and great point ❤️
Sorry I didn't read it properly.
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.
?? 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.
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.
I see what you're seeing in the video now, but there isn't a safety there. The feature on the gun is a slide catch. It holds the slide back (you have to pull the slide back first manually).
I'm not bullshitting you when I say that a Glock does not possess a lever safety on the side. There is no safety. There's just the split trigger, which goes unsafe as you pull the trigger and "safe" again as you let go of the trigger. It's equivalent to the grip safety on a 1911, but on the trigger.
Not really, because she's not actually doing anything when she moves her thumb there. Nothing on the gun is moving (and there's nothing to move). Unless she normally trains with a different gun she wouldn't have any kind of muscle memory to turn off a lever safety that might be located there.
Plus, I don't think I've ever seen a pistol with a manual safety that operates from that side; most are designed to be pushed to the left from the right with your right-hand trigger finger before putting that on the trigger. If they have one of those at all.
Most of them, I thought? Left side behind the slide catch.
I think I remember something about them having to move the safety to the right side to satisfy some military contract or another, though. (Looked it up, they made it ambidextrous instead of left-side only.)
https://external-content.duckduckgo.com/iu/?u=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.eaglegunrangetx.com%2Fwp-content%2Fuploads%2F2015%2F10%2Fglocksplode-1.gif&f=1&nofb=1
#27 slide stop lever
Your link doesn't go to a specific frame in the video, but I don't know what she's doing or if it has any intent behind it.
so you're telling me anytime i had a gun to my head from a cop, if their fucking finger woulda slipped that woulda been it? theres no actual safety mechanism on a fucking cops gun?
Yes, if they're using a glock or similar style pistol. Welcome to the absolute joke that is a "trigger safety". There's a reason so many gun enthusiasts don't like glocks and similar style pistols.
if you don't have something anti-police state to say, then keep it to your self
She should still get the wall for murder though.
this was like the only redeemable thing you said
it's giving a cop the benefit of the doubt, which is an overfilled position taken by people that aren't leftists.
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.
You fuck up at your job at starbucks and give back a nickel instead of a dime in change? you're fired.
You shoot someone as a cop instead of tasering them? oopsie whoopsie little fuckey wuckey
They used this line when the cop executed that kid at the Fruitvale BART station in Oakland, too. Was nonsense then, is nonsense now.
Bodycam footage makes me believe that the pig was telling the truth in this case.
This is one of those things where it's maybe true but the sheer incompetence involved means that it's really no better anyway.
Like, how do you fuck up that bad? If I was a cop I would remember where my lethal and non-lethal were.
I agree but this whole thread is about how the pig is lying, which I don't think is true. Its definitely a mistake I could see happening. I've made stupid things myself, lucky for me none of those stupid mistakes have involved weapons.
I don't really know anything about this particular case, but immediately this strikes me as extremely unlikely. Firearms and tasers feel very different in the hand. They are different shapes, and different weights. When you hold it up to shoot someone, it looks immediately and obviously different. When you put your finger on the trigger, it feels significantly different. And don't cops guns have to have extreme, even unsafe trigger weights? So when you actually start pulling the trigger, if you were trying to pull the trigger of a taser you would immediately realize that it's taking far too much force to depress.
Maybe you can explain further how, in this case, this mistake makes sense.
I think the decision to focus on this particular shooting is intentional because it probably was actually an accident. Cops are trained military style to draw and shoot quickly. She also only fired once I think if she knew she was going to shoot him dead she would have unloaded like cops always do. She also resigned which most cops that intentionally murder people don't do.
So basically, yeah, probably a legitimate accident, but the fact that accidents are outliers in police shootings lately should be telling. The protests need to keep going on, just because it was an accident doesn't bring back the dead and cops shouldn't be allowed to be in situations where they can kill people either accidentally or intentionally.
The problem is that as the debate shifts from "how the fuck was she even allowed to be in a situation where she could accidentally kill someone" to "was it an accident or not" we shift from systemic critique of the police (that is valid no matter the answer to the other question) to a narrative of personal responsibility that focuses on this individual cop. The fact that this one could legitimately have been an accident makes that transition easier.
Well the bodycam footage was released. This incident of him running and her shooting him all happens in under 3 seconds. Live action in a high pressure situation, all those differences you noted between the gun and taser would not be noticed. She was screaming for the other officer to tase him, then she pulled out her gun and instantly shot him. It happened so damn fast. Her voice sounded genuinely shocked when it happened, that she had shot her gun instead of the taser. She literally screams "OH SHIT" the instant after it happens. Its not some fake ass cover story that she invented afterwards. Pigs shouldn't carry lethal weapons, in a lot of countries they don't.
all those differences you noted between the gun and taser would not be noticed.
I simply don't understand how that's possible, and your explanation hasn't helped. The triggers aren't similar. If you were trying to pull the trigger of a taser and you actually had your finger on the trigger of a firearm, it does not seem possible to me not to notice. Instantly. Especially since, unless police tasers also have the absurd trigger weights of police firearms, you would simply be unable to pull the trigger of a glock with the force you were intending to use on the trigger of a taser. It doesn't make sense to me.
She did the thing she was trianed to do. This really is an easy mistake to make. She was too focused on the situation to notice what her hands were doing. This is just like when you try to push your glasses up you aren't wearing them.
Reflex actions really are triggered by the lower motor neurons and can happen without conscious intention. And sufficiently trained skill can get internalized as a reflex like this. Having the stun weapon so similar to the kill weapon would easily allow for a person to get confused and do this below the level of human thought. Which is why cops both shouldn't have guns and shouldn't be so quick to do violence to organize the situation.
I don't know if you've ever been in a high pressure physical situation before but you REALLY don't notice details when you're scared and trying to do something fast. Even if the trigger weight is wildly different it wouldn't be noticed/reflected upon until after the weapon is fired.
In most cases, there has been little or no jail time for officers disciplined or tried for wounding or killing someone in situations in which they said they had mistaken a gun for a Taser. In the Pennsylvania case, for example, the district attorney said the officer violated a policy requiring officers to wear their Tasers on the side opposite their firearms. Still, he said the officer “did not possess the criminal mental state required to be guilty of a crime under state law.”In most cases, there has been little or no jail time for officers disciplined or tried for wounding or killing someone in situations in which they said they had mistaken a gun for a Taser. In the Pennsylvania case, for example, the district attorney said the officer violated a policy requiring officers to wear their Tasers on the side opposite their firearms. Still, he said the officer “did not possess the criminal mental state required to be guilty of a crime under state law.”
:amerikkka: :amerikkka: :amerikkka:
Edit: this account is supposed to be a bit as part of the u/Quimby extended posting universe, but I was so enraged that I forgot to change accounts. Just pretend Quimby posted it.
Not related to the topic at hand, but trigger safety is such a joke anyway
I guess that's not one of the 'stupid games' where you win 'stupid prizes.'
why would tasing the guy even be acceptable. He was literally in arms reach.
