Video wird geladen...

Video konnte nicht geladen werden

Zur Startseite

These claims have been floating around for two days now, and somehow not a single outlet has felt the need to check them against the actual footage. Here is what happened. First, the NYPD was not shutting down a harmless snow day snowball fight. Officers responded after receiving calls...

76,532 Aufrufe • vor 6 Monaten •via X (Twitter)

0 Kommentare

Keine Kommentare verfügbar

Kommentare vom Original-Post werden hier angezeigt

Ähnliche Videos

🚨I DIDNT WANT to do it BUT I have too. You didn’t see this yet. The narrative that “he was just filming and the officers got angry” is false. The narrative that he was only trying to protect two women is also false. He, along with others, was actively interfering with a legitimate law-enforcement operation. That is why officers moved them off the street. That does not mean he deserved to die. When officers attempted to detain him, he resisted arrest. That does not mean he deserved to die. He was armed and chose to insert himself into an active enforcement operation while resisting arrest. That does not mean he deserved to die. An agent called out the presence of a firearm. During the attempt to secure it, the weapon discharged before the agent could declare the scene clear. Other officers, hearing a gun call and a gunshot while a suspect was resisting arrest, reacted according to their training. From their perspective, they were confronting an armed individual resisting arrest. That is why, immediately after the shooting, one officer urgently asked where the firearm was. He believed he had just engaged an armed suspect, because that is precisely the situation as it appeared in real time. He did not deserve to die. However, his actions, his decisions, and his criminal interference were contributing factors, alongside serious failures by the officers involved. I believe the shooting was unnecessary. I believe there were many alternative ways the situation could have been handled. I do not believe the officers were truly under lethal threat. Recklessness on all sides resulted in a man losing his life. Approximately 23 percent of ICE activity occurs in Texas, yet we do not see these outcomes there. Minnesota accounts for roughly 2 percent of ICE operations, yet has seen multiple shootings involving American citizens. The difference is organized resistance. Blue states have coordinated efforts designed to insert civilians into active ICE operations to interfere intentionally and directly. Interfering with law-enforcement operations is illegal, and it is dangerous. This is how people get killed. Resisting arrest is illegal, and it is dangerous. This is how people get killed. Within the Second Amendment community, there is a common saying: “I would rather be judged by twelve than carried by six.” It refers to choosing survival over moral victory. That same principle applies to interactions with law enforcement. Would you rather be right, or would you rather be alive? Make smart decisions when dealing with law enforcement. Survive the encounter. Then take the fight to court. Use every lawful platform available to expose misconduct. Name departments, supervisors, and officers. Demand accountability through evidence and process. But interfering with an active operation, resisting arrest, and doing so while armed creates a predictable and deadly outcome. Was it legal for him to be armed? Yes. Should citizens carry lawfully? Yes. Is it profoundly reckless to interfere with law enforcement and resist arrest while armed? Absolutely. When we carry firearms, we accept greater responsibility. That responsibility was neglected here. It is possible to support immigration enforcement while condemning reckless policing. It is possible to criticize law enforcement while also acknowledging the dangerous behavior of civilians. It is possible to recognize complexity, rapid escalation, human error, and shared responsibility in a fast-moving situation. He did not have to die. Liberty only survives when it operates within order. Nothing about this situation was orderly. When order collapses, lives are lost. He did not have to die.

A Gene Robinson

717,175 Aufrufe • vor 7 Monaten

The court left three dead children in a hung jury and called it part of the process. That is not justice. That is cowardice. The jury refused to do the one thing that would have been appropriate and find Lindsay Clancy guilty. Patrick Clancy was in Midtown again, sunglasses on, walking like any other Sunday. Two days earlier a Massachusetts jury could not decide whether his ex-wife murdered Cora, Dawson, and Callan. Eleven jurors were ready to end it. We do not know for certain which way they were leaning, but most people think they wanted to acquit. One was the holdout. The prosecutor is expected to try the case again. So the man who already took the stand and described coming home to what his wife did to his kids now lives with the chance he will have to say it all a second time. The sidewalk photos of Patrick are not a victory lap. They are what life looks like when the system cannot finish the job and the cameras still follow the father instead of the verdict. Notice how little the press does to mourn the children. It is easier to drum up drama about a man walking on a sidewalk. A mistrial does not bring Patrick’s children back. Nothing does. Not even a guilty verdict heals those wounds. But a conviction would at least show there is accountability. A life sentence would tell other parents that Lindsay’s kind of act is not a loophole. Patrick now walks with the mistrial on him. It does not settle the facts. It postpones the pain and asks the surviving parent to keep taking the cameras as he moves through public. The kids are still gone. The case is still open. That is the story. Not that a man went for a walk.

Paul A. Szypula 🇺🇸

53,876 Aufrufe • vor 13 Tagen