4 ms·

From the other side of the story: https://gbi.georgia.gov/press-releases/2023-01-20/gbi-investigates-officer-involved-shooting-following-multi-agency https://g

From the other side of the story: https://gbi.georgia.gov/press-releases/2023-01-20/gbi-investigates-officer-involved-shooting-following-multi-agency https://gbi.georgia.gov/press-releases/2023-01-20/gbi-invest... >UPDATE > > Atlanta, GA (January 20, 2023) – We are releasing a photo of the handgun that was in Manuel Esteban Paez Teran’s possession when a Georgia State Patrol trooper was shot on January 18 at the site of the future Atlanta Public Safety Training Center. The handgun is described as a Smith & Wesson M&P Shield 9mm. Forensic ballistic analysis has confirmed that the projectile recovered from the trooper’s wound matches Teran’s handgun. Other preliminary information released in this case is consistent with the investigation so far.

woodruffw 4y ago
This doesn't materially conflict the statement in the article, which links to that press release: the police have provided no evidence that the victim short first. As TFA points out, there is conveniently no police bodycam footage.
- Quillbert182 4y ago
  There isn't any bodycam footage, but I find it extremely hard to believe that Teran managed to shoot a police officer after he had been shot several times.
  - woodruffw 4y ago
    You've reduced it down to a single scenario, but that's one of many: it seems just as plausible that the police shot at him, he shot back, and then they hit him multiple times. It also seems plausible (although less likely) that his gun was fired by someone else. Either way, the important fact is that we do not know more because there is no bodycam footage.
    - Quillbert182 4y ago
      If someone else had shot the gun, there would have been physical evidence of another person in the immediate area, which we would have heard about by now.
      - woodruffw 4y ago
        My understanding is that they arrested a whole bunch of other people at the same time, and there was general tumult during the "operation." But again, that's the less likely scenario. I still think it's more likely the cops shot at him, he shot back, and then they killed him in a second volley. This would be compatible with all public facts about the case.
    - kcplate 4y ago
      >it seems just as plausible that the police shot at him, he shot back, and then they hit him multiple times. I think for something to be deemed “just as plausible”, you would need to demonstrate that by in large police fire on subjects first when unprovoked at a greater rate than when provoked. I am not saying that police never act unprovoked, but I’d bet it is statistically higher that when there is a weapons discharge involving police, there was a provocation from someone first.
      - woodruffw 4y ago
        > you would need to demonstrate that by in large police fire on subjects first when unprovoked at a greater rate than when provoked. Not exactly: I'd only need to demonstrate that police do fire on citizens with some regularity, without regard for whether they also happen to fire on people shooting at them (which I'd expect them to!). And indeed, they do[1]. [1]: https://www.washingtonpost.com/graphics/investigations/police-shootings-database/ https://www.washingtonpost.com/graphics/investigations/polic...
        kcplate 4y ago
        Sure it happens, but if it doesn’t happen more often than unprovoked shootings. So you resort to having to multiply entities beyond necessity to make your scenario “just as plausible”. Your scenario, while perhaps remotely possible, seems to be the most unlikely scenario within the known evidence. The most likely scenario was he took his gun and shot a cop and was promptly shot for that action which took his life. Whether or not he shot first really doesn’t matter to the situation. I am sure he was aware that a police presence in his area was possible given the protest. I think it’s likely that police identified themselves before any gunfire took place (it’s what they do, because it generally helps protect them by warning folks around them that they are police). If he was shot first, it’s entirely reasonable to believe he was aware that he was shot by police, still engaged, fired, and shot a cop.
- sokoloff 4y ago
  Ballistics evidence and likely residue on the hands of the deceased will almost surely support the thesis that he shot at the cops. If you point a gun at a cop, it’s not surprising that you get shot by them. (There’s no legal obligation for the police to shoot second.)
  - woodruffw 4y ago
    Nobody in this thread has cast serious doubt on him firing the gun. The entire matter is of chronology.
    - Quillbert182 4y ago
      Frankly, even if he did shoot second, which is unlikely, he almost certainly pulled a gun on the police, which would justify the shooting regardless.
- deleted 4y ago
  [deleted]
kcplate 4y ago
I basically stopped reading the original article here: >>Officials say Manuel shot first at a state trooper “without warning” and an officer or officers returned fire, but they have produced no evidence for the claim. Except of course…for the trooper with the bullet wound in the hospital that is communicated in the very next sentence… >>The trooper was described as stable and in hospital Thursday. How does this story get past an editor?
- Quillbert182 4y ago
  It gets past an editor when the editor has an agenda.
- woodruffw 4y ago
  A bullet doesn't guarantee your chronology. The article's factual basis is correct: the police claim he fired first, and an officer was shot, but we lack the bodycam footage to actually verify the chronology.
  - kcplate 4y ago
    I’d suggest that you are more likely to be shot by the police if you provoke them first than the other way around. Especially if other folks were also arrested in the same police operation without provoking the police and managed to avoid being shot and killed in the process.
    - woodruffw 4y ago
      > I’d suggest that you are more likely to be shot by the police if you provoke them first than the other way around. I don't dispute this. But "provocation" is not a capital crime in this country.
      - Quillbert182 4y ago
        By "provocation" I imagine the commenter means "pulled out a weapon."

woodruffw 4y ago

This doesn't materially conflict the statement in the article, which links to that press release: the police have provided no evidence that the victim short first. As TFA points out, there is conveniently no police bodycam footage.

Quillbert182 4y ago
There isn't any bodycam footage, but I find it extremely hard to believe that Teran managed to shoot a police officer after he had been shot several times.
- woodruffw 4y ago
  You've reduced it down to a single scenario, but that's one of many: it seems just as plausible that the police shot at him, he shot back, and then they hit him multiple times. It also seems plausible (although less likely) that his gun was fired by someone else. Either way, the important fact is that we do not know more because there is no bodycam footage.
  - Quillbert182 4y ago
    If someone else had shot the gun, there would have been physical evidence of another person in the immediate area, which we would have heard about by now.
    - woodruffw 4y ago
      My understanding is that they arrested a whole bunch of other people at the same time, and there was general tumult during the "operation." But again, that's the less likely scenario. I still think it's more likely the cops shot at him, he shot back, and then they killed him in a second volley. This would be compatible with all public facts about the case.
  - kcplate 4y ago
    >it seems just as plausible that the police shot at him, he shot back, and then they hit him multiple times. I think for something to be deemed “just as plausible”, you would need to demonstrate that by in large police fire on subjects first when unprovoked at a greater rate than when provoked. I am not saying that police never act unprovoked, but I’d bet it is statistically higher that when there is a weapons discharge involving police, there was a provocation from someone first.
    - woodruffw 4y ago
      > you would need to demonstrate that by in large police fire on subjects first when unprovoked at a greater rate than when provoked. Not exactly: I'd only need to demonstrate that police do fire on citizens with some regularity, without regard for whether they also happen to fire on people shooting at them (which I'd expect them to!). And indeed, they do[1]. [1]: https://www.washingtonpost.com/graphics/investigations/police-shootings-database/ https://www.washingtonpost.com/graphics/investigations/polic...
      - kcplate 4y ago
        Sure it happens, but if it doesn’t happen more often than unprovoked shootings. So you resort to having to multiply entities beyond necessity to make your scenario “just as plausible”. Your scenario, while perhaps remotely possible, seems to be the most unlikely scenario within the known evidence. The most likely scenario was he took his gun and shot a cop and was promptly shot for that action which took his life. Whether or not he shot first really doesn’t matter to the situation. I am sure he was aware that a police presence in his area was possible given the protest. I think it’s likely that police identified themselves before any gunfire took place (it’s what they do, because it generally helps protect them by warning folks around them that they are police). If he was shot first, it’s entirely reasonable to believe he was aware that he was shot by police, still engaged, fired, and shot a cop.
sokoloff 4y ago
Ballistics evidence and likely residue on the hands of the deceased will almost surely support the thesis that he shot at the cops. If you point a gun at a cop, it’s not surprising that you get shot by them. (There’s no legal obligation for the police to shoot second.)
- woodruffw 4y ago
  Nobody in this thread has cast serious doubt on him firing the gun. The entire matter is of chronology.
  - Quillbert182 4y ago
    Frankly, even if he did shoot second, which is unlikely, he almost certainly pulled a gun on the police, which would justify the shooting regardless.
deleted 4y ago
[deleted]

kcplate 4y ago

I basically stopped reading the original article here: >>Officials say Manuel shot first at a state trooper “without warning” and an officer or officers returned fire, but they have produced no evidence for the claim. Except of course…for the trooper with the bullet wound in the hospital that is communicated in the very next sentence… >>The trooper was described as stable and in hospital Thursday. How does this story get past an editor?

Quillbert182 4y ago
It gets past an editor when the editor has an agenda.
woodruffw 4y ago
A bullet doesn't guarantee your chronology. The article's factual basis is correct: the police claim he fired first, and an officer was shot, but we lack the bodycam footage to actually verify the chronology.
- kcplate 4y ago
  I’d suggest that you are more likely to be shot by the police if you provoke them first than the other way around. Especially if other folks were also arrested in the same police operation without provoking the police and managed to avoid being shot and killed in the process.
  - woodruffw 4y ago
    > I’d suggest that you are more likely to be shot by the police if you provoke them first than the other way around. I don't dispute this. But "provocation" is not a capital crime in this country.
    - Quillbert182 4y ago
      By "provocation" I imagine the commenter means "pulled out a weapon."