5 ms·

What do you mean by "fear of reprisal"? It seemed pretty clear to me that they didn't want to head in for fear of confronting someone who can shoot back for a c

What do you mean by "fear of reprisal"? It seemed pretty clear to me that they didn't want to head in for fear of confronting someone who can shoot back for a change.

vGPU 3y ago
Indeed. Hence, we get the latest FBI public execution of a “right wing terrorist”: a 75 year old obese mobility-scooter-bound vet.
- ozaark 3y ago
  Idk much about the situation but in a few of that guys posts he made prior to being raided he talked about sniping potusa from afar with time, place in mind, pictures of him with rifles, and threats to answer FBI with guns. Afaik obese scooter bound people can still aim a rifle from afar. He basically provoked a situation and was treated as credible threat based on his own actions.
  - vGPU 3y ago
    In the video it appears to be an obvious execution. The classic fbi “shoot him through the window” maneuver.
robertlagrant 3y ago
> It seemed pretty clear to me that they didn't want to head in for fear of confronting someone who can shoot back for a change. This is a confusing statement. Isn't it good if police aren't used to confronting armed criminals?
- delecti 3y ago
  I chose the wording of "shoot back for a change" very deliberately. Cops act tough and intimidate people who they know can't fight back, but are cowards when society actually needs armed peace-keeping. If the police aren't used to confronting armed threats, then clearly in the vast majority of cases they shouldn't need to be armed themselves.
  - robertlagrant 3y ago
    Well it's not all police officers you're talking about; it's these ones. Are you saying these officers' performance would've improved if they hadn't been armed? Why?
    - delecti 3y ago
      I'm saying that the stark difference in those officers' performance vs their usual behavior shows that they usually expect to not be facing armed threats. Society is worse because they usually go into situations thinking "I'm armed and they aren't", and would improve if they weren't armed by default. It wouldn't have helped in Uvalde if police weren't armed by default, but I'm not sure anything would have helped, because they already had all the tools they needed for that situation.
      - robertlagrant 3y ago
        Well, better officers would've helped. There are plenty of them.

What do you mean by "fear of reprisal"? It seemed pretty clear to me that they didn't want to head in for fear of confronting someone who can shoot back for a change.

vGPU 3y ago

Indeed. Hence, we get the latest FBI public execution of a “right wing terrorist”: a 75 year old obese mobility-scooter-bound vet.

ozaark 3y ago
Idk much about the situation but in a few of that guys posts he made prior to being raided he talked about sniping potusa from afar with time, place in mind, pictures of him with rifles, and threats to answer FBI with guns. Afaik obese scooter bound people can still aim a rifle from afar. He basically provoked a situation and was treated as credible threat based on his own actions.
- vGPU 3y ago
  In the video it appears to be an obvious execution. The classic fbi “shoot him through the window” maneuver.

robertlagrant 3y ago

> It seemed pretty clear to me that they didn't want to head in for fear of confronting someone who can shoot back for a change. This is a confusing statement. Isn't it good if police aren't used to confronting armed criminals?

delecti 3y ago
I chose the wording of "shoot back for a change" very deliberately. Cops act tough and intimidate people who they know can't fight back, but are cowards when society actually needs armed peace-keeping. If the police aren't used to confronting armed threats, then clearly in the vast majority of cases they shouldn't need to be armed themselves.
- robertlagrant 3y ago
  Well it's not all police officers you're talking about; it's these ones. Are you saying these officers' performance would've improved if they hadn't been armed? Why?
  - delecti 3y ago
    I'm saying that the stark difference in those officers' performance vs their usual behavior shows that they usually expect to not be facing armed threats. Society is worse because they usually go into situations thinking "I'm armed and they aren't", and would improve if they weren't armed by default. It wouldn't have helped in Uvalde if police weren't armed by default, but I'm not sure anything would have helped, because they already had all the tools they needed for that situation.
    - robertlagrant 3y ago
      Well, better officers would've helped. There are plenty of them.