771
9News US Correspondent Lauren Tomasi hit by rubber bullet during Los Angeles protests
(www.9news.com.au)
this post was submitted on 09 Jun 2025
771 points (99.4% liked)
News
30010 readers
4309 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. 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
Did we watch the same video? The cop did that on purpose. There wasn't anyone else to shoot at there.
Also, crossfire? Nobody else was shooting. It was just cops.
My local news said «when the police aimed at her and shot» at lest some can see what’s up
The only other people were other press. There were camera and microphone operators. Looking at the video, it's so obvious that the cop aimed at the press and then shot.
Is there any way to tell what kind of cop that was?
My extensive experience leads me to think he is a bastard
Well that totally narrows it down...
easy way: they were a cop. all types are the same: bastard traitor terrorists.
A bastard.
I'd like to present a different view. It doesn't excuse the shot, but it could offer an explanation better than "the officer took aim and shot the journalist for shits and giggles"
The officer clearly took aim and shot the journalist on purpose. But when the camera turns 180 to GTFO you see a crowd. It would seem, to me at least, that the members of the press were positioned between the police and the protesters.
It can be hard to tell from that angle, and with no context, how the lines were drawn. But let's, for the sake of the argument, just go with this assumption. It would appear that the police wanted to get the press to fuck on out of there, so there would be no bystanders before pushing the protesters back.
Doesn't that make it OK? Not really. One could argue that police wouldn't want to hurt the press, and getting them out was necessary. One could also be lead to believe that the police could have other motives for not wanting the press there with their pesky cameras.
Ah yes, getting them out by shooting them with less lethal bullets. What an dishonest shit argument. Also journalists have special protections since 2020 from the police targeting them. I wonder why this was necessary
https://apnews.com/article/gavin-newsom-california-27c9b8a1c530df4344b4909fd8d7993d
I was not arguing in favor of the police officer there. I presented two arguments with a varying degree of malicious intent.
I don't buy the argument you're quoting either, but I do buy that the officer would try it if questioned through his union. If for nothing else than, it's better PR than the second proposed argument.
This is not the kind of situation where anyone's gonna get sat down and debriefed. The LEO that are responding to these situations are already vetted. The people who said they might not be comfortable didn't get put on the list. The humans who are there in uniform are most likely there because they want to be and are itchy to shoot.
Were you born yesterday?
On reddit they said these people are like fox News over there so they are pro trump they wouldn't claim the police did anything wrong but still obviously have to say something as it's live TV
Channel 9 are not quite Fox News level but definitely Fox Lite. They're careful in their written news articles to only be centre-right, but their video and TV news broadcasts are heavily favoured to right-wing bias and favourable story selection, and always very critical of any left wing interests.
I'm not sure of their YouTube channel is available worldwide, but if you check that out if you can and you'll quickly see it's got all the same talking points as Sky News Australia (News Corp - Murdoch, Sky News is the Aussie version of Fox News).
They're pretty much your bog standard right-wing media. They don't endorse ridiculous conspiracy theories or the overthrow of democracy like Fox News does in America or Sky News does in Australia, and they basically try to stick to relatively factual reporting. But they also, as you say, bias towards the right in story selection. And they're relatively low-brow, going for sensationalism rather than good journalism, more often than not.
They always do