The liberal media and the police Killing of Sonya Massey
I didnt give much thought on the title but I wanted to see if people actually took the time to watch the police body cam footage. I mentioned the media because nobody seems to want to talk about the obvious. This cop is still locked up as far as i know and everyone seems to be villainizing him. I actually took the time to watch the video in slow motion and you can clearly see that the lady 100% intended on throwing boiling water on him. There is no dispute on that yet nobody wants to say it for fear of upsetting an all too familiar narrative. If you watch the video you will clearly see that the woman drops to floor holding only her oven mitts. The pot is sitting on the counter. The officers arm obstructs the bodycam up until the last second where you see the woman holding the pot and throwing it at the cop. I just dont understand how in the freeist country in the world not a peep is being mentioned about this. You can say well the cop should have dropped back or ran and thats a valid argument but what you dont do is pretend that this lady was innocent when it seems to be an instance of a very troubled lady choosing to die at the hands of a cop. I will try to link the video below if that is cool with mods. It's not graphic. It will be the last 5-6 seconds and you obviously need to watch it in slow motion. It is the bodycam of the cop who shoots her. You have to realize he is only about 5 feet from her and his arm blocks a good chunk of the crucial 5-6 seconds. He is lucky his arm didnt block the whole thing or he would be spending the rest of his life in prison.
I admittedly didn't spend a lot of time on this, but I didn't see any intent to throw boiling water. Even if there was that doesn't justify shooting.
.
This. These guys make good money and retire at 50 with a HS education cuz they are expected to navigate difficult situations.
All kinds of people are in these situations, like teachers, postal workers, Uber drivers, clerks at stores...
Only cops wet their pants and start spraying bullets every time they think k there is a 1% chance they might possibly be in danger.
When I was a sub I had a pretty big kid who, in that neighborhood could easily have a weapon, get in my face repeatedly shove me while screaming he was going to kill me.
I wasn't even allowed to touch him. I'd probably have been fired if I just grabbed his wrists and restrained him.
Luckily I was a part time substitute teacher with one week of training, so I could handle it, unlike a cop.
As I am not a pants wetting coward, it was NBD. Not my favorite day on the job, but I got through it and didn't lay a finger on the kid.
Tons of people deal with such things every single day. Only when it's cops do two armed men vs 1 woman with a pot of water fear for their lives so badly that they just start killing people.
I think I would just run away, but who knows.
I tend to avoid physical confrontations at all cost, even when I am fairly confident I would win; but I also recognize my ego is not linked to my perceived physical prowess or "bravery" in such situations, nor would I be shamed or suffer loss of status by anyone whose opinion I care about for running away. But I also accept that for people wired differently or in a different social milieu running away would not be considered a viable option.
This. These guys make good money and retire at 50 with a HS education cuz they are expected to navigate difficult situations.
All kinds of people are in these situations, like teachers, postal workers, Uber drivers, clerks at stores...
Only cops wet their pants and start spraying bullets every time they think k there is a 1% chance they might possibly be in danger.
When I was a sub I had a pretty big kid who, in that neighborhood could easily have a weapon, get in my face repeatedly shove me whi
You realize there are tons of videos on social media of substitute teachers, and even regular teachers, assaulting students who antagonize them. You reducing it to substitute teachers generally being able to navigate difficult situations, but police not being able to, isn't supported by reality; and just reflects your own prejudices.
How many substitute teachers have killed their students?
You realize there are tons of videos on social media of substitute teachers, and even regular teachers, assaulting students who antagonize them. You reducing it to substitute teachers generally being able to navigate difficult situations, but police not being able to, isn't supported by reality; and just reflects your own prejudices.
That's normal human behavior. It would be understandable if the cops shoved her or something. Maybe ethical or not.
How many times has a teacher killed a student over some percieved chance of a threat?
Lots of postmen shooting people's dogs? Lots of 7/11 clerks shooting people for reaching for their wallets?
Let alone 2 male teachers killing a female student because they "feared for their lives" or, in this case, feared a boo boo.
He'll, if YOU had a gun and you thought maybe someone might throw hot water at you, and they might or might not hit you and it might or might not be hot enough to do real damage, and you could just distance yourself from them.... Would you shoot them in the head?
If so, you are an enormous coward.
How many times do you think British or German cops kill people in situations like this?
Given Crossnerds clear biases the fact that you are comfortable with her clearly biased explanation again suggests your own biases are playing a role. I am pretty confident if the officer was a black female and the civilian was a white male and everything else went exactly the same, both you guys would have wildly different interpretations of what happened.
My sweet summer child, if you do not believe my explanation for that phrase and the context in which I repeatedly heard it uttered, Google is available to you!
you basically said rebuke = let's agree to disagree. that is 100% wrong. just an FYI.
I said that the phrase “I rebuke you in the name of Jesus” typically is used when the person saying it disagrees with or dislikes something that someone else said or did.
There is also occasionally some implication that the thing that was said or done or the person who said or did it that is now being rebuked was not Christian, or in extreme cases, demonic.
Again, it implies no aggression. It’s an utterance of protection if anything, and it is very common in black and religious communities. It’s a quote from the Bible.
The US has environmental conditions not present in those other countries (proliferation of guns, mental illness epidemic, wealth disparity, generally more individualistic and criminal culture) that makes this comparison apples to oranges.
If German or British cops were transported to the US and vice versa, I expect the environment would take over, and outcomes would be similar.
I would probably let someone throw ice water on me without shooting them
I said that the phrase “I rebuke you in the name of Jesus” typically is used when the person saying it disagrees with or dislikes something that someone else said or did.
There is also occasionally some implication that the thing that was said or done or the person who said or did it that is now being rebuked was not Christian, or in extreme cases, demonic.
Again, it implies no aggression. It’s an utterance of protection if anything, and it is very common in black and religious communities. It’s
A rebuke is a strong, sharp, stinging disagreement. It is not a "disagree or dislike." Come on.
A rebuke is a strong, sharp, stinging disagreement. It is not a "disagree or dislike." Come on.
I am telling you how the phrase is commonly used. The “rebuke” is theoretically to the demon inside the person who made them do or say something disagreeable. It’s not meant to be literal..
Again, there are cultures within the United States who use this phrase commonly and casually. It’s not a threat.
I can’t tell you how many times I saw kids rebuked “in the name of Jesus” growing up and it just meant basically “you’re wrong for that.”
I am telling you how the phrase is commonly used. The “rebuke” is theoretically to the demon inside the person who made them do or say something disagreeable. It’s not meant to be literal..
Again, there are cultures within the United States who use this phrase commonly and casually. It’s not a threat.
I can’t tell you how many times I saw kids rebuked “in the name of Jesus” growing up and it just meant basically “you’re wrong for that.”
She said “I rebuke you in the name of Jesus”. I spent part of my childhood in the South and heard this phrase frequently, especially from the religious black community. It literally just means I don’t like/agree with what you just said or did.
You can see where my confusion comes from. It's not meant to be literal but it literally just means.....
I am telling you how the phrase is commonly used. The “rebuke” is theoretically to the demon inside the person who made them do or say something disagreeable. It’s not meant to be literal..
Again, there are cultures within the United States who use this phrase commonly and casually. It’s not a threat.
I can’t tell you how many times I saw kids rebuked “in the name of Jesus” growing up and it just meant basically “you’re wrong for that.”
Yeah, some of the more Charismatic Church preachers say it all the time. I've never heard it used s a threat. Surprised any American is not familiar with the expression.
You can see where my confusion comes from. It's not meant to be literal but it literally just means.....
I think in the latter post Crossnerd used "literally" to mean "figuratively", like 99.99% of the population do. While I'll admit to being one of those who finds this usage irksome, I think it's pretty clear what she meant.
I think in the latter post Crossnerd used "literally" to mean "figuratively", like 99.99% of the population do. While I'll admit to being one of those who finds this usage irksome, I think it's pretty clear what she meant.
I don't think Crossnerd is a dummy and I'm sure she knows the usage of literal. I'm just saying her definition of rebuke if a little off.
If you replay the clip and replace the phrase “I rebuke you in the name of Jesus” with “You’re wrong for that”, then you will essentially have the context of what was meant by it and how ridiculous his reaction was.
