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.
“Hit by rubber bullet” as if it was a stray. Watch the live broadcast and it’s clear as day the shooter lifted his gun and aimed straight at her without provocation
They should have used the photo of the officer aiming at her.
And the title... I hate the passive voice shit with pigs.
"Hit by rubber bullet"
The man aimed at her and opened fire. It's on camera. "Shot by cop."
"Intercepted non-lethal round from law enforcement."
"Crossed paths with lawfully-launched projectile. "
"Interfered with first-amendment suppression."
In the article they show the video of her being shot at and also describe what happened as the officer aming and shooting her
People seem to be rising up, at least. Finally. Hopefully momentum keeps them going and they start organizing a bit better and being more impactful.. Let's start the revolution.
National Anthem need some lyric change:
~~And the rockets' red glare, the bombs bursting in air, Gave proof through the night that our flag was still there;~~
And the riot-police gear,
gunshots echo through the air,
Gave proof though the night
that our flag is no longer there;
What legal reason would the police have for shooting journalists who are in no way in the midst of any violence?
edit: looks like they are going to claim she was blocking traffic, even though the car could have used the other lane.
There is no legal reason, whatever they say here is bullshit.
Is it standard to shoot people who are blocking traffic?
In America where drivers have more rights than anyone. Yes, it is acceptable to shoot people who are blocking traffic.
In capitalist america, they shoot you for blocking traffic
The car that hadn't even come round the corner yet?
If that's what they will do to a unarmed attractive female Australian white reporter while being filmed, what they are doing to minorities must be fucking horrendous.
Let's not jump to conclusions here, there is still time for them to kidnap her and deport her to El Salvador!!
I know "deport" is technically correct by the definition of the word, but I feel like we need to start using different terminology when they're sending people to a mega prison in a third country that they've likely never been to and have no historical or familial connection to.
This is rendition. They (we) are kidnapping and imprisoning people with no due process. It's shameful. I'm ashamed.
Concentration Camp is the term we’re looking for.
It’s a Concentration Camp.
Prison? We've seen the photos. Time to call it what it is.
It's a concentration camp.
desaparecido
Human Trafficking.
Exactly. They're already willing to beat them to death on camera. What the fuck are they doing with so many of them flooding the streets and kidnapping people?
A 9News reporter has been caught in the crossfire of chaotic protests that have engulfed parts of Los Angeles.
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?
easy way: they were a cop. all types are the same: bastard traitor terrorists.
My extensive experience leads me to think he is a bastard
Well that totally narrows it down...
Are we great again yet? Or do we need to be made great again again again and again?
You do realize that the people who voted for Trump are loving all of this. They want a police state. Because they believe that they will never be subject to it.
Unpopular Opinion: Y'all were never great. The country had one brief period of some sanity before it got dropkicked out the door by Reagan. The only difference between the United States and Russia is good PR and even better propaganda. The United States is offensive to common sense and human decency on every fundamental level, from it's inception until today. Things are just more obvious now. That's the only difference.
It's the BLM protests all over again... Including them taking shots at the press.
Rubber bullets are lethal at that range. Not "less lethal"; lethal. And that cunt cop 100% knows this. It's in the training. This was attempted murder of a member of the press.
Ok.
So, when people throw around the phrase 'rubber bullet'... it tends to conjure in most people's minds... a projectile, made of rubber, that is about the same size as a bullet.
They are not the same size as a bullet.
They are the same size as a grenade launcher round, between 30mm and 40mm, generally speaking.... which is about 3x to 5x the size of most actual bullets from a pistol or rifle, albeit not travelling as fast as either of those.
They also tend to have a metal inner core.
So its more like a slug round from an 8 to 4 gauge shotgun, with rubber coating, were you to roughly extrapolate existing shotgun gauge size/naming conventions:
Also, the actual usage manuals for these things state that... you are not to fire them directly at someone closer than approximately 200-400 feet, what you are supposed to do is fire them at the ground at a shallow angle, such that they bounce or ricochet upward at a shallow angle...
... because there is so much energy in one of these rounds that they need to be dissapated by that bounce, otherwise they are quite likely to cause serious injury or even kill someone.
That is to say, 'less than lethal' means 'potentially lethal' when used improperly, and cops routinely use them improperly all the time.
This cop who fired that round, at that range (under 200 feet, under the minimum safe distance for any kind of firing)... not only was he too close to safely fire the thing at all, it looks like he just fired it directly at her, between her knees and hip, without a bounce.
When cops say, when people say cops 'need better training', the technical details I have just outlined are part of that better training... which, in practice, they disregard all the time.
Similar wild deviations exist between manufacturer suggested usage guidelines for tasers, and how they are routinely, actually used by cops.
Another example of intentional bullshit perversion of proper use procedures is the cop 'at ease' stance, where elbows are bent and each hand is roughly up at each pectoral... this is a common, general 'idle' stance... and it often is used to obscure the view of chest mounted body cams.
In conclusion: Yes, this absolutely was an intentional attempt to murder or grievously injure a journalist, basically 2nd degree attempted murder if this was done by not-a-cop.
Also, the actual usage manuals for these things state that… you are not to fire them directly at someone closer than approximately 200-400 feet, what you are supposed to do is fire them at the ground at a shallow angle, such that they bounce or ricochet upward at a shallow angle…
This is incorrect, but a very widespread misunderstanding.
Guidelines from the Geneva Human Rights Platform suggest that rubber bullets should be directed at the lower body (the guidelines actually caution against “skip-firing” or shooting at the ground first, because it makes them too unpredictable). The potential for a rubber bullet to ricochet, Heisler explains, makes for a dangerous situation. https://www.inverse.com/mind-body/rubber-bullets-cannot-be-used-safely
What you are calling a misunderstanding is based on.... not citing manufacturer guidelines, nor police training documents.
Skip-firing is (correctly) declared too dangerous because of the potential to ricochet into the head, which can be lethal.
The older, 'less lethal', 40mm rubber rounds, police were using 5, 10+ years ago?
Yeah, their official training docs did state that you should skip-fire them, because the older rounds were of a much more primitive design, and would in fact cause greivous injury when used in direct fire, ie point at what you want to hit.
The cops did not want to give up their toys, so they invented a new official usage doctrine that 'made them safer', while also not really following it in many cases.
This resulted in, within the last 5 to 10 years, the development of 40mm launchers and projectiles that are of a bit more advanced design, with lower muzzle velocities, which are now marketed with the phrase 'Direct Impact' somewhere in the name or description of the thing.
And these are not really 'rubber bullets' either, they are basically a dense foam that deforms much more than an actual bullet would.
So ... I don't know if you can identify exactly what weapon and round was used in this instance.
If it was an older models, and many police agencies often keep many older models around, then uh yeah, those things are unsafe to use in the manner depicted.
If they are the newer models, then it was used in the 'correct' manner, as described by modern mfg guidelines and training/usage manuals.
So... yeah.
This is all rather complicated because ... well just in general police are secretive and lie all the time about how they actually do things, and different police agencies have different loadouts and gear, there is not 100% standardization across every city, country, and federal LE agency... and the same variation applies for usage doctrine, both theorertical and actual.
I'll admit that my info is maybe a bit out of date, but not fundamentally wrong: if we could identify the exact weapon and round used, that would be helpful.
EDIT:
So uh, in addition to ... large sized 'less lethal' impactor rounds giving people heart attacks with a chest shot, breaking limbs, permantly blinding someone or literally killing them with a headshot...
Exploding testicles.
A good number of cases of men being hit in the crotch, and yep, ruptured testes, blew apart your balls.
Fun Stuff!