4 ms·

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.

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.