▲ 995 ▼ All the excuse needed (slrpnk.net) submitted 2 years ago by Track_Shovel@slrpnk.net to c/lemmyshitpost@lemmy.world 22 comments fedilink hide all child comments
[–] LemmyFeed@lemmy.world 49 points 2 years ago (1 child) While rolling around on the ground screaming "I'm hit!" permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [–] TexasDrunk@lemmy.world 38 points 2 years ago (1 child) I thought you were making this part up for a laugh. I apologize for questioning your integrity. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [–] cordlesslamp@lemmy.today 17 points 2 years ago (1 child) Wait, he's not? permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [–] DragonTypeWyvern@literature.cafe 22 points 2 years ago (1 child) No. His partner also opened fire on the unarmed person in handcuffs because he was rolling around in the middle of the street screaming about being shot, so she said to herself "Well, he must have been shot because he's rolling around in the middle of the street like a jackass even though he should be taking cover." permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [–] cordlesslamp@lemmy.today 14 points 2 years ago (1 child) After reading the article, apparently her actions was deemed "reasonable"? What? Shooting an unarmed, handcuffed man because you can't differentiate between a gun shot and an acorn, and have zero directional hearing is "REASONABLE"? permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [–] jpeps@lemmy.world 15 points 2 years ago (1 child) From what I read, they didn't shoot at the unarmed suspect but at their own cop car. Stable geniuses. I can understand why the sergeant's actions were deemed reasonable though, as she was trusting that her partner was in a life and death situation and not hesitating to back him, the truest of idiots, up. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [–] logos@sh.itjust.works 19 points 2 years ago* (1 child) They were shooting at their own car because the unarmed, handcuffed man that they thought had just shot one of them was locked in the back seat. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [–] jpeps@lemmy.world 8 points 2 years ago Ah sorry, you're right. I misread the article thinking they were all at or in the SUV. permalink fedilink source parent
[–] TexasDrunk@lemmy.world 38 points 2 years ago (1 child) I thought you were making this part up for a laugh. I apologize for questioning your integrity. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [–] cordlesslamp@lemmy.today 17 points 2 years ago (1 child) Wait, he's not? permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [–] DragonTypeWyvern@literature.cafe 22 points 2 years ago (1 child) No. His partner also opened fire on the unarmed person in handcuffs because he was rolling around in the middle of the street screaming about being shot, so she said to herself "Well, he must have been shot because he's rolling around in the middle of the street like a jackass even though he should be taking cover." permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [–] cordlesslamp@lemmy.today 14 points 2 years ago (1 child) After reading the article, apparently her actions was deemed "reasonable"? What? Shooting an unarmed, handcuffed man because you can't differentiate between a gun shot and an acorn, and have zero directional hearing is "REASONABLE"? permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [–] jpeps@lemmy.world 15 points 2 years ago (1 child) From what I read, they didn't shoot at the unarmed suspect but at their own cop car. Stable geniuses. I can understand why the sergeant's actions were deemed reasonable though, as she was trusting that her partner was in a life and death situation and not hesitating to back him, the truest of idiots, up. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [–] logos@sh.itjust.works 19 points 2 years ago* (1 child) They were shooting at their own car because the unarmed, handcuffed man that they thought had just shot one of them was locked in the back seat. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [–] jpeps@lemmy.world 8 points 2 years ago Ah sorry, you're right. I misread the article thinking they were all at or in the SUV. permalink fedilink source parent
[–] cordlesslamp@lemmy.today 17 points 2 years ago (1 child) Wait, he's not? permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [–] DragonTypeWyvern@literature.cafe 22 points 2 years ago (1 child) No. His partner also opened fire on the unarmed person in handcuffs because he was rolling around in the middle of the street screaming about being shot, so she said to herself "Well, he must have been shot because he's rolling around in the middle of the street like a jackass even though he should be taking cover." permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [–] cordlesslamp@lemmy.today 14 points 2 years ago (1 child) After reading the article, apparently her actions was deemed "reasonable"? What? Shooting an unarmed, handcuffed man because you can't differentiate between a gun shot and an acorn, and have zero directional hearing is "REASONABLE"? permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [–] jpeps@lemmy.world 15 points 2 years ago (1 child) From what I read, they didn't shoot at the unarmed suspect but at their own cop car. Stable geniuses. I can understand why the sergeant's actions were deemed reasonable though, as she was trusting that her partner was in a life and death situation and not hesitating to back him, the truest of idiots, up. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [–] logos@sh.itjust.works 19 points 2 years ago* (1 child) They were shooting at their own car because the unarmed, handcuffed man that they thought had just shot one of them was locked in the back seat. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [–] jpeps@lemmy.world 8 points 2 years ago Ah sorry, you're right. I misread the article thinking they were all at or in the SUV. permalink fedilink source parent
[–] DragonTypeWyvern@literature.cafe 22 points 2 years ago (1 child) No. His partner also opened fire on the unarmed person in handcuffs because he was rolling around in the middle of the street screaming about being shot, so she said to herself "Well, he must have been shot because he's rolling around in the middle of the street like a jackass even though he should be taking cover." permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [–] cordlesslamp@lemmy.today 14 points 2 years ago (1 child) After reading the article, apparently her actions was deemed "reasonable"? What? Shooting an unarmed, handcuffed man because you can't differentiate between a gun shot and an acorn, and have zero directional hearing is "REASONABLE"? permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [–] jpeps@lemmy.world 15 points 2 years ago (1 child) From what I read, they didn't shoot at the unarmed suspect but at their own cop car. Stable geniuses. I can understand why the sergeant's actions were deemed reasonable though, as she was trusting that her partner was in a life and death situation and not hesitating to back him, the truest of idiots, up. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [–] logos@sh.itjust.works 19 points 2 years ago* (1 child) They were shooting at their own car because the unarmed, handcuffed man that they thought had just shot one of them was locked in the back seat. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [–] jpeps@lemmy.world 8 points 2 years ago Ah sorry, you're right. I misread the article thinking they were all at or in the SUV. permalink fedilink source parent
[–] cordlesslamp@lemmy.today 14 points 2 years ago (1 child) After reading the article, apparently her actions was deemed "reasonable"? What? Shooting an unarmed, handcuffed man because you can't differentiate between a gun shot and an acorn, and have zero directional hearing is "REASONABLE"? permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [–] jpeps@lemmy.world 15 points 2 years ago (1 child) From what I read, they didn't shoot at the unarmed suspect but at their own cop car. Stable geniuses. I can understand why the sergeant's actions were deemed reasonable though, as she was trusting that her partner was in a life and death situation and not hesitating to back him, the truest of idiots, up. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [–] logos@sh.itjust.works 19 points 2 years ago* (1 child) They were shooting at their own car because the unarmed, handcuffed man that they thought had just shot one of them was locked in the back seat. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [–] jpeps@lemmy.world 8 points 2 years ago Ah sorry, you're right. I misread the article thinking they were all at or in the SUV. permalink fedilink source parent
[–] jpeps@lemmy.world 15 points 2 years ago (1 child) From what I read, they didn't shoot at the unarmed suspect but at their own cop car. Stable geniuses. I can understand why the sergeant's actions were deemed reasonable though, as she was trusting that her partner was in a life and death situation and not hesitating to back him, the truest of idiots, up. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [–] logos@sh.itjust.works 19 points 2 years ago* (1 child) They were shooting at their own car because the unarmed, handcuffed man that they thought had just shot one of them was locked in the back seat. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [–] jpeps@lemmy.world 8 points 2 years ago Ah sorry, you're right. I misread the article thinking they were all at or in the SUV. permalink fedilink source parent
[–] logos@sh.itjust.works 19 points 2 years ago* (1 child) They were shooting at their own car because the unarmed, handcuffed man that they thought had just shot one of them was locked in the back seat. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [–] jpeps@lemmy.world 8 points 2 years ago Ah sorry, you're right. I misread the article thinking they were all at or in the SUV. permalink fedilink source parent
[–] jpeps@lemmy.world 8 points 2 years ago Ah sorry, you're right. I misread the article thinking they were all at or in the SUV. permalink fedilink source parent
