First off, the shooter claims that the cop was about to murder an unarmed protestor.
But more importantly, it was just one person who shot. Collective punishment is literally against the Geneva Convention.
Imagine getting a 50 year prison sentence because you were peacefully protesting at a place where someone else shot a cop. By the same logic, every cop that was present when Alex Pretti was executed should have 50+ year prison sentences.
I know reading comprehension is not great on this site, but I’m in no way shape or form making an argument the protestors were in the wrong. Literally just providing context.
It’s cool that you were able to get that snarky remark in, but I was not necessarily disagreeing or arguing with you.
However, reading your comment again, it still comes across as cop apologetics. It’s the “the protest did end with a cop being shot”. It’s a justification. Maybe you didn’t intend that, but that’s the implication.
It’s not in any way a justification. In fact the language is deliberately neutral as not to imply the protestors did anything wrong (which they didn’t) a protest happened and a cop was shot. Just stating objective fact, because that is a crucial detail the the other commentary left out, which makes their comment sound like they arrested and sentenced these people purely for protesting. (Which they kind of did, and the cop being shot was just their justification, but that’s besides the point)
First off, the shooter claims that the cop was about to murder an unarmed protestor.
But more importantly, it was just one person who shot. Collective punishment is literally against the Geneva Convention.
Imagine getting a 50 year prison sentence because you were peacefully protesting at a place where someone else shot a cop. By the same logic, every cop that was present when Alex Pretti was executed should have 50+ year prison sentences.
I know reading comprehension is not great on this site, but I’m in no way shape or form making an argument the protestors were in the wrong. Literally just providing context.
It’s cool that you were able to get that snarky remark in, but I was not necessarily disagreeing or arguing with you.
However, reading your comment again, it still comes across as cop apologetics. It’s the “the protest did end with a cop being shot”. It’s a justification. Maybe you didn’t intend that, but that’s the implication.
Did I comprehend ok?
It’s not in any way a justification. In fact the language is deliberately neutral as not to imply the protestors did anything wrong (which they didn’t) a protest happened and a cop was shot. Just stating objective fact, because that is a crucial detail the the other commentary left out, which makes their comment sound like they arrested and sentenced these people purely for protesting. (Which they kind of did, and the cop being shot was just their justification, but that’s besides the point)