The whole thing is a horrible situation and why I don't think weapons should be brought to a protest in the first place as this is precisely what I feared happening when I wrote an essay on protest violence & the arming of protests some 9 years ago.
Comments
Log in with your Bluesky account to leave a comment
I think this is a misinterpretation of the problem of cops letting too many mass shooters go. This occurs because many mass shooters fit demographics that cops tend to defer to (white folks and conservatives especially). Whereas Arturo is part of a demographic cops disproportionately target. So 1/2
I'd argue in fact this is an example of police letting a real potential mass shooter go (the "security" that actually killed people), while misdirecting resources more on a basis of incorrect stereotypes. Thus if the concern is "don't ignore mass shooter warning signs", they're doing exactly that.
I totally agree that the "white and Republican" factor of letting mass shooters go is absolutely a part of the problem but I'm also of the mind that it's also unwise to assume that because someone is of a targeted demographic, they are automatically innocent. Like I said, it's a horrible situation.
If that was all people were saying I'd agree. But given that every report is this man did not fire his weapon, then the presumption of innocence needs to be very strong. Especially since this charge is appears to protect a vet/former 1st responder, which is also groups given undue deference by cops.
Yep and yep! Absofuckinglutely! Hate, hate, hate, hate, hate it. The former is "Minority Report" type charges & the actions of the peacekeeper absolutely require thorough investigation but whether that'll happen appropriately or not is questionable.
Comments
Prejudice risk is so high here, too.