News
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.
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.
view the rest of the comments
With all of these women being charged with murder for abortions, are we going to see these police punished for killing an innocent bystander (the baby)?
The mother was not innocent in this. A vehicle is a deadly weapon. She fucked around, and found out. I do feel sorry for the unborn child though. I wish there were a way they could have stopped the car non-violently that didn't violate our freedoms. Vehicle immobilizers that police could use seem a ham-fisted solution -- If she was let go, and running from the police as she clearly intended to do, she could have easily harmed someone or killed someone else. Just because you're ready to jump on the "Poleece bad mkay" train...at least look at this further than just the incident at hand. She was fleeing, and probably panicking. She was a harm to others and stopping her was probably the right call. How else are you supposed to stop someone with a 3000lb death machine in a parking lot full of pedestrians?
Where are the people suggesting what could have been done better here? Because I don't see them. I see stupid platitudes of "oh you could have let her go and arrested her at her house"...come on. She was a danger to the pedestrians in the parking lot there. If she was allowed to just try and race home, how many other people could have been put at risk because of her panic?
It's not police policy to kill fleeing suspects, plenty of jurisdictions even choose not to pursue. So the answer to those questions is that yes, they absolutely could have let her drive away, as some other police forces already do without issue.
Aside from that, even if they decided to pursue, it is not police policy anywhere to use deadly force to stop a fleeing subject unless it becomes an acute danger to the public. A fleeing subject who has yet to break 10 MPH does not fall under that description, not here, not anywhere.
And here's a question, if it was such a deadly situation for this officer, how did he not get injured? He was already safely out of the way of the vehicle by the time any of his bullets had an effect. Because he's not a fucking invalid and can side step a car, which he put himself in front of to begin with, pulling out of a parking spot.
Do you feel safer today because this woman is dead? Does anyone?
Yes, those policies refer to fleeing suspects who pose no danger to the public. Fleeing in a vehicle poses a danger to the public. That's why they pit-maneuver vehicles fleeing on the highway.
Great, they didn't allow her to break 10mph, it means they did their job.
The deadly situation doesn't apply JUST to the officer -- they are meant to protect the public. It's just like computer security, someone good at their job doesn't have anything happen. They stop the problem before it becomes a problem. You're not good at your job because you LET the system get infected first.
Ditto for policing, you don't wait for them to hurt others in order to justify stopping them after - they were already being detained. If you begin driving off with pedestrians around and the police want you out of your vehicle, they have a legitimate reason to stop you using whatever force is necessary.
If she is just running away? Hell no, the force isn't justified here. It's her being in the car that causes the force to be justified. Same with if a person had a gun, or a knife, she has a weapon...the car.
So you plan on volunteering to be hit between a car and a wall at 10mph to show how not-deadly it is? Because I'll concede my point if you do. If you don't want to do it, ask yourself why... it's probably because a 3000lb object traveling at 10mph can be deadly; despite your protests to the contrary.
Nothing that you've stated here can objectively determine that these police officers did anything wrong, your political biases are at play here rather than a good neutral look at reality.
A pit maneuver isn't an attempt to kill the driver.
There is no evidence she was a danger to anyone in that parking lot. None. Zero. Pulling out of a parking spot does not make you a deadly threat. There's no amount of imagination of what could go wrong that makes it so.
Have the police even used the threat to the public as justification for this shooting? If not, why are you making that argument for them? The only issue I've seen them raise was the danger to the officer who fired the shot.
There's no such thing as objective right and wrong, we're not discussing a measurable experiment here. I'm biased against the unnecessary loss of life. I'm biased against police murdering pregnant women (or anyone, of course). I'm biased against our police being far more violent than any of our contemporaries. If that makes me "politically biased" in your eyes, so be it. I'd much rather be on that end of bias than the other.
I'm biased against the unnecessary loss of life as well, which is why I make decisions that limit the opportunities for it to happen. To place all of the blame on the police here is shortsighted and makes no effort into holding the person accountable for their actions as well.
So in short. She made decisions that led to her own demise. She could have made better ones, and she didn't. Her death, was a result of the choices she made. The police were within the guidelines they are permitted to act upon. I don't see anything they did here that could have been done objectively better. I'd have preferred they taze her, but it looked like the window was up in her vehicle. I would have loved for this whole thing to turn out differently, but it didn't.
I'm just not simply going to place the blame on the police in this situation, as I don't see them as having overstepped any lines.
Police do terrible, horrible shit every damn day. But I'm not going to blindly react to every public interaction with police in a demonizing manner without looking at the objective reality. The reality of the situation here is that she made the wrong decision and ultimately paid for it. I wish it wouldn't happen, but I'm not going to fault the police officers for this one. There are many worse incidences to point out, and claiming that this one was one of the bad ones just dilutes the argument when police truly do something out of line.
What do you suggest be done otherwise that would have objectively stopped this woman? What other manner of detainment was available here? Does your solution put others at risk? How can we move towards implementing solutions for police that doesn't ultimately also put their life at risk when encountering people who would otherwise disregard their own safety?
He could have not jumped in front of the car for starters.
There was no risk to anyone in letting her drive home. Fuck right off with all your deadly weapon bullshit that's already been called out. Take her license plate, let her drive home, and deal with the accusations later. No one gets hurt, problem solved.
Yeah, because that's what we do when someone is criminally resisting, we...let them go! Are you listening to yourself objectively right now?
Oh there's a guy who just robbed a bank and shot 2 tellers? Don't shoot him, just let him go. We'll just put out a warrant for his arrest and pick him up later!
Wut...
There was risk in letting her drive home. That part is clear. She was already willing to attempt running over an officer. Your argument is that the officer shouldn't have stepped in front of the car? Seriously? She was told to get out of the car. Not to leave. The idea behind stepping in front of the car is that most people would have the sense enough NOT to try and run someone over with that car. She didn't. She suffered those consequences.
If a police officer told you to step out of the car and they had someone in front, would you attempt to run him over? I sure as fuck wouldn't. But because he's a police officer and you've already made up your mind about him, you don't mind excusing HIS life, and you'll make all sorts of arguments for hers.
It's pretty clear that this argument isn't in good faith from you. You're not willing to use logic and a baseline of morality on a level playing field across all actors in this event. You've discounted her actions, and aren't willing to even budge on the argument that she shouldn't do what she did.
Life lesson kids: If you don't want to get killed by a police officer...don't attempt to run over them with your car.
She was accused of shoplifting.
Jesus Christ.
But again. It isn't policy to always immediately go after a fleeing person. You are ignoring that she steered away from the officer and he deliberately put himself in front of her. You are ignoring that she went incredibly slowly. The cops, plural, as in other cops who could have gotten in their cars and created a barricade, were also present. There were numerous things they could have done rather than murder her. But I guess it's only the murder victim who did anything wrong and the cops are perfect.
Listen to yourself right now. Not only are you putting words in my mouth with the "cops are perfect" shtick, but you're completely dismissing the womans actions. You're making an excuse for literally everything she did. Meanwhile in my replies, I've mentioned and even suggested ways police could have done things better.
All cops are bad. I agree with that. But I don't agree with "All cops are bad all the time in every situation whatsoever".