223
Motorist killed as police respond to bomb threat targeting Marjorie Taylor Greene
(www.newsfromthestates.com)
this post was submitted on 11 Dec 2024
223 points (96.7% liked)
News
23627 readers
2507 users here now
Welcome to the News community!
Rules:
1. Be civil
Attack the argument, not the person. No racism/sexism/bigotry. Good faith argumentation only. 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. Do not respond to rule-breaking content; report it and move on.
2. All posts should contain a source (url) that is as reliable and unbiased as possible and must only contain one link.
Obvious right or left wing sources will be removed at the mods discretion. We have an actively updated blocklist, which you can see here: https://lemmy.world/post/2246130 if you feel like any website is missing, contact the mods. Supporting links can be added in comments or posted seperately but not to the post body.
3. No bots, spam or self-promotion.
Only approved bots, which follow the guidelines for bots set by the instance, are allowed.
4. Post titles should be the same as the article used as source.
Posts which titles don’t match the source won’t be removed, but the autoMod will notify you, and if your title misrepresents the original article, the post will be deleted. If the site changed their headline, the bot might still contact you, just ignore it, we won’t delete your post.
5. Only recent news is allowed.
Posts must be news from the most recent 30 days.
6. All posts must be news articles.
No opinion pieces, Listicles, editorials or celebrity gossip is allowed. All posts will be judged on a case-by-case basis.
7. No duplicate posts.
If a source you used was already posted by someone else, the autoMod will leave a message. Please remove your post if the autoMod is correct. If the post that matches your post is very old, we refer you to rule 5.
8. Misinformation is prohibited.
Misinformation / propaganda is strictly prohibited. Any comment or post containing or linking to misinformation will be removed. If you feel that your post has been removed in error, credible sources must be provided.
9. No link shorteners.
The auto mod will contact you if a link shortener is detected, please delete your post if they are right.
10. Don't copy entire article in your post body
For copyright reasons, you are not allowed to copy an entire article into your post body. This is an instance wide rule, that is strictly enforced in this community.
founded 2 years ago
MODERATORS
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
view the rest of the comments
2)…wanna bet the cop was driving at a high rate of speed, in a vehicle without lights and sirens?
I'd argue it isnt clickbait and is a fairly accurate title. Motorist killed as police respond. The motorist was hit while the police were responding. The title never claimed the motorist had anything to do with the bomb threat, that was the context for the police response. Typically when the headline is refering to someone involved with the crime, they use the term suspect. The fact they used motorist actually gave me a hint it was an unassociated party that was hit.
The only way it's misleading is in the usual refusal to acknowledge that the police killed this innocent person. It's always the same passive voice, as if people keep magically dropping dead when the police happen to be around.
It including that it was to a bomb threat towards green implies an untrue association.
Was the title technically accurate? Yes. Is it still click bait? I’d say yes. Cops kill people responding to (and no where near,) calls with a startling regularity.
Some cop got up and yehawwed through traffic without the usual aids to make it safe. It happens. It’s almost never reported.
A headline trying to get you to read an article!? The scandal of the century.
It doesn't imply that the motorist had any association with the crime. It barely implies that the two events are related and doesn't even suggest that the police were involved in the killing.
I wouldn't concede the technically accurate part myself. That second paragraph really throws that into doubt.
Where do you get they were responding? This says they were heading to headquarters in a personal vehicle. They're not rushing to the scene of anything here.
They were called in for a bomb threat (as bombsquads usually are,) but had to report to the station first.
so they were "responding" to the bomb threat, but had to go gear up before actually heading out. So it's fair to say they were "responding", particularly since highly specialized cops like bomb techs only catch certain kinds of calls, and other cops stay the hell away from them.
Exactly, so not rushing to the scene of the crime , but going to change clothes. If their expertise was needed immediately they would have headed right to the scene, and if equipment was needed it would have met them there. Of course it's all moot because if you actually read the article, you'd see that the bomb threat was made on Friday, and this happened on the following Monday. So tell me again what they're responding to? Tell me again why he had to kill this woman? Did this even have anything to do with the bomb threat or are they just using it as an excuse when they really just killed a woman?
Ahhh... Okay. But wait, the equipment can't teleport or drive itself there, right? So maybe this person was doing that, getting the equipment there, so other people could drive straight there?
They never said that, lol
What do you mean maybe this person was doing that? Where are on Earth you getting that from? They're absolutely implying the death of this woman was justifiable due to an emergency. An emergency that didn't exist. Which I note that you didn't address at all.
Where? They only said it wasn't click bait and that the accident happened while the officer was responding. "They're absolutely implying the death of this woman was justifiable due to an emergency." They never ever say it was justifiable. Show me where.
I said implying genius you just quoted me saying that. By saying that the motors was hit while the police were responding. That part. That's called justification.
I noticed yet again you ignored the pertinent part of my comment though. Almost like you don't want to bring it up.
I didn't answer that part because it was irrelevant to anything I was saying. And no, I don't agree that saying an officer responding to something getting into an accident "implies" it is justified. Much less do I agree that someone stating that fact means they're implying they personally thought it was justified.
Stating a fact? What fact? Because if you're going to say it's a fact they were responding to a bomb threat then it seems like you do need to address the other point. The one you've been dancing around the entire time. The one that invalidates everything else you've been saying.
What the fuck am I dancing around? I was just saying that the officer was driving to the HQ and in the process of responding to a threat.
Listen, this story is fucked. There's like a million fuck ups involved. We don't need to make up new ones to criticize them. An officer getting into a wreck and killing someone is bad regardless of whether they're in the process of responding to a call or not or even on duty at all. The fact that they were responding to a threat (however fucking late lmao, I would've expected the mailbox blown up by the) doesn't change it. It's stupid and awful.
I'm not dancing around anything. You're equating people correcting that the officer was responding to a dispatch (as opposed to just driving to work as part of their commute or something) while they got into a wreck that killed someone as them saying that makes it okay, but nobody has said that. Nobody has tried to say anything anywhere close to something like this was some sort of acceptable collateral damage of the policing process lol.
What threat?
I absolutely cannot deal with you. You're being intentionally obtuse. They got a bomb threat. Yes, it ended up being fake. They didn't know that at the time.
As dystopian as American police are, they do not have full on Minority Report style precogs using magical psychic powers to discern if a bomb threat is real or not the moment it is received.
And, again, because I feel like you're missing my point, I'm not defending them. None of this was acceptable. I'm, literally, only saying they didn't yet know the threat was fake. That's it.
They got a bomb threat on Friday. This happened on Monday. How do you have the gall to claim anyone else of being intentionally obtuse? There was no threat.
This supposed accident had nothing to do with the bomb threat. It's being used to cover up the death of a woman. And yes when you keep saying they were responding to a threat you are justifying it. Because you're implying it was reasonable, you just said so again.
Like I said, there's a million things here to criticize.
Okay, now this is an entirely different thing than the other stuff you've been saying. If you want to discuss that as a possibility then that's fine.
No lol. An officer responding to a threat doesn't magically give them the right to run down bystanders.
This thread is fucking wild thanks for staying with it
I feel like I'm taking crazy pills, for real. I don't know what their deal is.
Personal vehicle: https://www.usatoday.com/story/news/politics/2024/12/10/marjorie-taylor-greene-bomb-threat-car-crash/76884681007/
I'm sure it'll come out later that he was speeding.
Sometimes, cops that are frequently on call are allowed to install lights or sirens on personal cars so they can get into their station quickly.
Bombsquad calls are less frequent but generally urgent.
In any case, I would suggest he was driving like he had lights and sirens, despite not having them. Which makes it incredibly unsafe to do, and places blame squarely on the cop. (Though the article made sure to mention she pulled into his way.)
I mean, like it or not, that's the way the law reads and is applied. We run into it with motorcycles all the time. Barring extreme cases, the car that pulls in front of the speeding vehicle is 'at fault.'
I wouldn't bet against it but I've had the same thing happen. Buddy was driving and it was a bright sunny summer afternoon. We were doing all of 30MPH and an old lady pulled out onto the road maybe 20' in front of us. The Samurai we were in was totaled and so was her Buick. She didn't die but she did spend a couple of days in hospital. I bounced my head off the windshield so hard I was knocked out and I bent the passenger door out a good 4" with my right arm / elbow. My buddy was also knocked out from banging his head off the windshield even with his seatbelt on. That can happen when your vehicle is suddenly gets 18" shorter.
I'm not defending the cop but sometimes drivers just do dumb shit, especially older ones.
Sure. Stuff happens.
But given the urgency in the cop… I have to assume he was rather more than somewhat at fault.
Also a good reason why driving a giant vehicle like a GMC Sierra that smashes anything it touches shouldn't be free. A higher vehicle tax on something like that would be appropriate, instead they get higher tax write-offs and lower emissions and safety standards.
Only if you're giving like +1500, then I might bet like $10
lol, my usual go-to internet wager is pet photos. Doesn’t even need to be your pet :)
When cat photos are exchanged we all win.
I don’t have a cat, so take this instead… shamelessly ripped off c/cats (rocket may have been good for a few shared chuckles on my end. Compliments of PugJesus)
And probably distracted using his laptop.
Of course they applied their brakes, just like they "fear for their life" or "told the citizen to comply" while beating their brains out - they just make up whatever fanciful lies they can to escape the justice they purport to represent.