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.
It's not limited to one outlet. The coverage I have seen so far has been pretty universal. I mean you guys are perfect examples of that. There hasnt be any people that agree with me and I'd say that's because of the media coverage and the lack of detail. I question why the lady clearly throwing boiling water at the cop is a detail that hasnt been discussed AT ALL demonstrates clear bias. That answer your question bud?
Negative press coverage in and of itself is not a cause of action. Journalistic bias is not a cause of action. Libel or defamation can be causes of action, and you have not demonstrated that anything reported is factually inaccurate or untrue. So, no, it does not answer my question, bud.
I'm sorry man but I have to go with my eye balls on this one. Maybe I'm blind and crazy. I think I did a good job pointing people to literally just 5 seconds of undisputed proof. I mean am I wrong about those 5 seconds? give me that at least?
I didn't watch the video and the first I'd heard of the story was when you posted it here, so I have no preconceived bias whatsoever. I'm pretty sure you're wrong though, just purely based on the fact that there are a number of posters ITT who take the right wing side on pretty much every issue, including questionable police shootings, and even they're not on your side. It would take an act of god for them all to be mistaken in the "wrong" direction.
Negative press coverage in and of itself is not a cause of action. Journalistic bias is not a cause of action. Libel or defamation can be causes of action, and you have not demonstrated that anything reported is factually inaccurate or untrue. So, no, it does not answer my question, bud.
well I'm not going to put on my lawyer hat for you. I've seen very extensive coverage on the cops background and think a good lawyers going to make a case that this negative coverage warrants victimization. Maybe I'm wrong on that.
I didn't watch the video and the first I'd heard of the story was when you posted it here, so I have no preconceived bias whatsoever. I'm pretty sure you're wrong though, just purely based on the fact that there are a number of posters ITT who take the right wing side on pretty much every issue, and even they're not on your side. It would take an act of god for them all to be mistaken in the "wrong" direction.
I'm sorry but your not taking the time to watch 5 seconds of video screams you're just having fun arguing about anything that suits your fancy. Why should I even respond to anything you have to say when you cant even take a moment to examine the whole basis for what I believe?
I'm sorry but your not taking the time to watch 5 seconds of video screams you're just having fun arguing about anything that suits your fancy.
That's pretty much what we do here. Sorry, what did you think online forums were for?
Why should I even respond to anything you have to say when you cant even take a moment to examine the whole basis for what I believe?
I'll check it out in a bit and get back to you. I'll be surprised if it changes my mind though, as it has been described in pretty vivid detail here already.
well I'm not going to put on my lawyer hat for you. I've seen very extensive coverage on the cops background and think a good lawyers going to make a case that this negative coverage warrants victimization. Maybe I'm wrong on that.
The truth is an absolute defense against any and all libel claims. Hurt feelings don't count.
That's pretty much what we do here. Sorry, what did you think online forums were for?
I'll check it out in a bit and get back to you. I'll be surprised if it changes my mind though, as it has been described in pretty vivid detail here already.
I thought people cared to know wtf they're talking about. That so unforumlike?
I didn't dispute any of the facts of the case with you, the points I made were in relation to your posting style and attitude, and your responses to points others were making.
The fact that you'd already posted in another thread about constitutional protections getting in the way of locking people up, liberals wanting to release criminals, and then started this thread with "liberal media" gratuitously thrown into the title was more than enough information for the points I wanted to make.
Yeah, they didn't even give him bail. Lol at ths not ending with a guilty plea or a trial. Suggesting otherwise is just idiotic.
OP seems to think that because he can't personally see what the cop did wrong, everyone will come round to his point of view, let him out with an apology, a blowjob, and maybe a medal, and CNN are going to break off the millienz. OP clearly lives in OP's little world.
It's not limited to one outlet. The coverage I have seen so far has been pretty universal. I mean you guys are perfect examples of that. There hasnt be any people that agree with me and I'd say that's because of the media coverage and the lack of detail. I question why the lady clearly throwing boiling water at the cop is a detail that hasnt been discussed AT ALL demonstrates clear bias. That answer your question bud?
Odd example....since he lost every case that went to court and only won with an outlet that figured it was cheaper to pay off a nuisance claim than go to court.
Odd example....since he lost every case that went to court and only won with an outlet that figured it was cheaper to pay off a nuisance claim than go to court.
the right thinks that kid owns cnn now. you're not going to convince them otherwise.
OP seems to think that because he can't personally see what the cop did wrong, everyone will come round to his point of view, let him out with an apology, a blowjob, and maybe a medal, and CNN are going to break off the millienz. OP clearly lives in OP's little world.
Haha yeah. I can imagine OP thinking this dudes lawyers are meeting with him with printed out CNN segments talking about their lawsuit. When it’s really about whether he should sell his car, house etc because he’s going to be locked up for a year best case just waiting for a trial.
she was on her knees begging for mercy when the class traitor acab shot her in the face
she was calm the entire time.
(I'm going off memory here. I reluctantly watched the vid once a while ago, and I'm not going to watch it again)
I also remember that even the other class traitor acabs were appalled at this murder. and the murderer saying something like "f*cking crazy b*tch" after he murdered the defenseless woman in her bathrobe in her kitchen
not to mention that if that poor old lady tried to douse me with boiling water from that distance i'm fairly certain i'd be able to avoid it. it's not like she had a hose with a sprayer.
I'm with nate on this one. It would be difficult for me to throw water from a pot and hit people from that range, and I'm a lot bigger and stronger than that woman.
From what I saw, if the cops felt they were in danger, they very easily could have backed away and removed themselves from the danger.
I'm sorry but your not taking the time to watch 5 seconds of video screams you're just having fun arguing about anything that suits your fancy. Why should I even respond to anything you have to say when you cant even take a moment to examine the whole basis for what I believe?
because your argument is absurd. you think the media should be making a point of how this victim may have at one point considered throwing boiling water on a cop... cops who have a history of murder and abuse
and iirc cops just murdered her 4 year old nephew?
the point isn't about what this woman in her bathrobe did or didn't do. she did nothing. she may have thought about throwing the water on him.. the points is the murderous abusive police have a well documented history of this kind of thing... over and over and over...
we just had riots about it, and politicians promising to defund police. they increased funding, and the police continue to murder and abuse.
and it's partly thanks to ****s like you who defend them
I do have to correct myself.....she was not an "old lady." She was only *36. I'd still take my chances dodging the water.
*with her lot in life I'm sure she felt much older.
If the claim is self defense….good luck. But it’s also clearly an issue for a jury to decide and not for a judge given the tape. I think he they offered first degree manslaughter and the guy didn’t take it his attorneys would consider resigning.
First off it was boiling water and secondly she DID throw it at him. Why dont you ask Marquez Tolbert what he thinks about your theories on life.
These aren't my theories so much as the bedrock of every civilized society.
If your brain is not just a whirlwind of fear, violence and hatred, you accept the fact that it is possible you could be murdered or harmed by bad actor and freedom brings some risk.
Hopefully it doesn't happen. But, by thinking a step ahead, you can see that if we all started spraying bullets every time we believed we were threatened, eventually someone would shoot us too.
The only question here is, should police be held to the same standards as postmen and teachers, or to they get a special coward card, allowing them to execute anyone who scares them?
did you bother to take a minute to watch 5 seconds of video I linked? I feel like I'm taking crazy pills
It's not that you are crazy, It's that you are extremely committed to a premise which is rejected by people you are engaging on this. Your hardcoded premise is that IF the woman made any motion with the water towards the cops THEN they have every right to blow her brains out. I think if you can step back for a second and objectively consider this premise and it's implications to other situations then you might, if not change your stance, at least understand that positions of the overwhelming majority on this.
It's very common for people to take a key conditional for granted even though it is nonsensical. Nearly everyone did this on the issue of WMDs in Iraq. Both sides conceded the conditional that IF Iraq had WMDs THEN the war was justified, and the fight over the war was totally contained within that narrow range. But really this is an absurd premise. The mere holding of WMDs by Iraq was not sufficient legal or defensive grounds to go to war with Iraq, not even remotely close to being so. So don't feel insane just feel like everyone else.
It's not that you are crazy, It's that you are extremely committed to a premise which is rejected by people you are engaging on this. Your hardcoded premise is that IF the woman made any motion with the water towards the cops THEN they have every right to blow her brains out. I think if you can step back for a second and objectively consider this premise and it's implications to other situations then you might, if not change your stance, at least understand that positions of the overwhelming maj
I probably think about things more in terms of how grave the risk actually was, and how easy it was to avoid with non-lethal means, but this a good and interesting post.
FYI boiling water can be deadly.
"Kentucky motel ordered to pay $2 million after guest dies from 150-degree shower"
https://www.nbcnews.com/news/us-news/ken...
now why anyone would turn the water on while under the shower head....in a motel.....is beyond me.
