Viewing a single comment thread. View all comments

N8CCRG t1_itzo2da wrote

Reply to comment by AudibleNod in Man who livestreamed King Soopers mass shooting found not guilty in obstruction case by AudibleNod

This article didn't have a lot of detail, so I googled and read a few more articles. It sounds like he didn't distract them, they distracted themselves. They could have chosen to just ignore him entirely; he wasn't actually interfering in any way. They instead chose to focus their attention on him.

Sounds like the jury made the right call here, 100%.

193

Badtrainwreck t1_iu0b7ct wrote

I haven’t watched the video, but in light of Uvalde I think there is a good chance some officers just want to “be distracted” during mass shootings, because they do not want to be in any position where they do not have the upper hand. So it wouldn’t surprise me if some officers target people at the scene just so they don’t have to engage with a shooter

64

BubbaTee t1_iu15vf3 wrote

Funny how so many cops are "warriors" when bullying unarmed and compliant civilians, but the second there's a situation that actually requires a warrior to combat an armed opponent, they turn into "conscientious objectors."

23

sophacles t1_iu1gipp wrote

There's a lot of doors in the world. I can't imagine they ever have the upper hand when there are vehicles or buildings nearby

6

Jdban t1_iu1lg9n wrote

I remember watching this. He was always standing very far away and not interfering but they just kept bothering him over and over

4

[deleted] t1_iu0gy3b wrote

[removed]

−56

N8CCRG t1_iu0jfr7 wrote

You use the word respectfully, but then the rest of your comment is quite disrespectful. Just adding that word to the beginning doesn't change that.

As I thought would be clear from my comment, I read multiple independent sources. All appeared to be trustworthy established news sources (Colorado Public radio, Denver Post and local NBC affiliate, in addition to this one which didn't have a lot of detail). All of their accounting of the events matched the interpretation I recounted.

One could believe that these independent and competing news sources all collaborated to falsely describe the events that occurred, or something similar. Or one could acknowledge that is more than sufficient to reach a conclusion cautiously described as "It sounds like," which indicates it may not be accurate, but it's a reasonable starting point.

34

Bonezmahone t1_iu0pya4 wrote

How does anybody have an opinion? Are you trolling or are you just stupid?

14