29 ms·

Recently Georgia police killed an environmental activist protesting the construction of Cop City: https://www.cnn.com/2023/04/20/us/cop-city-activist-killed-dek

Recently Georgia police killed an environmental activist protesting the construction of Cop City: https://www.cnn.com/2023/04/20/us/cop-city-activist-killed-dekalb-county-medical-examiner/index.html https://www.cnn.com/2023/04/20/us/cop-city-activist-killed-d... Then the government indicted 61 activists on RICO charges: https://apnews.com/article/atlanta-cop-city-protests-rico-charges-3177a63ac1bd31a1594bed6584e9f330 https://apnews.com/article/atlanta-cop-city-protests-rico-ch... This is currently ongoing.

mu53 3y ago
Likely, another case that end up only netting maybe one or two people with charges after the process is finalized. The remaining will have had their lives turned upside down by the process, and despite being innocent, will have suffered immense damage financially by the state.
deleted 3y ago
[deleted]
DoneWithAllThat 3y ago
You mean the environmental activist who shot a police officer?
- PhasmaFelis 3y ago
  The activist that police claim shot an officer. The state did a test to determine if there was gunpowder residue on his hands, but has so far declined to release the result.
  - deleted 3y ago
    [deleted]
  - Quillbert182 3y ago
    The results were released months ago, gunpowder residue was found on his hands. https://www.fox5atlanta.com/news/autopsy-cop-city-protester-manuel-teran-death-gunshot-powder-residue.amp https://www.fox5atlanta.com/news/autopsy-cop-city-protester-...
    - morelisp 3y ago
      Teran was shot in their hands. If they actually fired a weapon there'd be a lot more than five particles to find, and in a lot more places.
      - Quillbert182 3y ago
        Maybe, but the commenter above claimed that the results weren’t released, which is false.
    - bongobingo1 3y ago
      Or not? Autopsy: Gunshot residue ‘not seen’ on activist killed at police training center https://www.ajc.com/news/crime/activist-killed-at-police-training-center-site-had-more-than-50-gunshot-wounds-autopsy-finds/RSL5T2D7WJDXNIULLBL6ZUZADE/ https://www.ajc.com/news/crime/activist-killed-at-police-tra... "According to the autopsy sent to ABC News, Teran did not have gunpowder residue on their hands. Officials claimed Teran fired the first shot at a state trooper." https://web.archive.org/web/20230419235728/https://abcnews.go.com/US/dekalb-county-releases-autopsy-cop-city-protester-manuel/story?id=98700731 https://web.archive.org/web/20230419235728/https://abcnews.g...
      - Quillbert182 3y ago
        While true, how it was explained to me was that the autopsy did a visual inspection, while the GBI test, which was done afterwards, was a more thorough chemical one. However, I don’t have a source on this one.
      - zdragnar 3y ago
        You're not going to see gunpowder residue without firing quite a few shots. The test is far more conclusion than a visual inspection.
        hedora 3y ago
        Well, he was shot over a dozen times at close range (probably while sitting with hands up), and both palms had exit wounds. I’m not sure how well visual inspection would work with all the blood and other carnage. However, I’m also not sure if trace gunshot residue will show up on current forensics tests if multiple people empty their clips into you from a few feet away. There’s also the question of why they shot him over a dozen times while he was unarmed.
  - bigstrat2003 3y ago
    Fair enough, but that's still one hell of a detail to leave out. It completely changes the nature of the case if that person did in fact shoot a police officer, and so those allegations bear mentioning even if they aren't proven yet.
  - chroma 3y ago
    The guy had a gun on him. The serial number matched that of a gun he legally purchased in 2020. The bullet in the officer matched that gun. Do you think the cops shot him, then shot one of their own to make it look like self-defense? If they wanted to get away with murder they could simply claim the guy pointed the gun at them.
Steven420 3y ago
He shot and wounded a police officer
- prepend 3y ago
  An environmental activist who shot at, and potentially wounded, a police officer. This is like a drug trial that reports deaths and neglects that people died in a car accident. Yale should be more responsible and work harder to have accurate reports if they want people to use their reports.
  - hn_throwaway_99 3y ago
    > Yale should be more responsible and work harder to have accurate reports if they want people to use their reports. Why do you think Yale even included the incident that the parent commenter was referring to?
- morelisp 3y ago
  There is no evidence of this and some recordings of a cop saying it was another cop.
  - zaroth 3y ago
    I have no horse in this race, but there is not “no evidence”. A handgun registered to the activist was found at the scene and ballistics from the bullet that struck the officer matches that gun. Later, the crime lab reported finding gun shot residue on the activist’s hands. I think those 3 things together combined with ample witness testimony would typically be considered proof beyond reasonable doubt.
    - hedora 3y ago
      The forensic evidence says his hands were empty (exit wounds though both palms), his arms were raised, and he was probably sitting on the ground cross legged when the cops shot him at least a dozen times. The initial crime lab report showed no gun shot residue, and the forensics imply the police lied about the incident. Witnesses testimony is contradictory. In my opinion, there’s no reasonable doubt that the police murdered him, execution-style. There is reasonable doubt that he shot the officer.
hn_throwaway_99 3y ago
> Recently Georgia police killed an environmental activist protesting the construction of Cop City: I mean, thanks for the link I guess, but I'd say this sentence leaves out some very important details. Namely, that the cops are claiming that this person shot and seriously wounded a cop first. To be clear, your linked article explains how it's not really clear yet what the sequence of events were, or if the person actually shot a cop. But I'd put it like this: 1. If the person did shoot the cop first, I have no problems with the other cops opening fire. 2. If the person did not shoot the cop first, then the cops should face severe legal charges. Since the facts on the ground are not yet known, I'll withhold judgment.
- eastbound 3y ago
  [flagged]
  - Quillbert182 3y ago
    You are arguing that climate protestors should be able to shoot people without repercussions?
    - bequanna 3y ago
      He’s arguing that people with the “correct” politics are more equal than others. Humankind went down that road plenty of times in 20th century. It always ended poorly.
  - hn_throwaway_99 3y ago
    > It doesn’t matter This is insane to me. It absolutely does matter whether the person actually shot at the cops or not. The idea that people should be free to go around shooting other people because it's a cause they believe in is when society really falls apart. I am curious why my post was downvoted so much. It's like people don't want to even wait until the facts are fully known. They want to go with the side that validates their preconceived narrative (whichever narrative that is), reality be damned.
chroma 3y ago
You forgot to mention that the activist was killed because he was shooting a cop.
- SamoyedFurFluff 3y ago
  Is this alleged by a cop? Cops can lie under oath without consequences, unlike a regular civilian.
  - chroma 3y ago
    Here’s the summary of the Georgia Bureau of Investigation’s findings: https://gbi.georgia.gov/press-releases/2023-04-14/gbi-investigates-officer-involved-shooting-following-multi-agency https://gbi.georgia.gov/press-releases/2023-04-14/gbi-invest... The protestor had a gun on him. The model and serial number matched that of a gun he purchased in 2020. The round recovered from the state trooper’s abdomen matched that gun.
    - SamoyedFurFluff 3y ago
      Okay? Georgia bureau of investigation isn’t exactly a neutral third party unfortunately, also, again, they can lie and omit without consequences. I’m pointing out that due to the existing corruption baked into the justice system and police force, it’s extremely difficult to buy anything said no matter how many fancy labels is put into it.
      - chroma 3y ago
        So what do you think happened? Did the Atlanta police place the gun at the scene and hope that the GBI would lie about the forensics results? Did they lie about the purchase records too? Did they shoot one of their own to justify murder? If they wanted to kill an activist, they could just say he was pointing a gun at them. No need to almost kill a state trooper to cover it up.
        SamoyedFurFluff 3y ago
polygamous_bat 3y ago
[flagged]
- ilyt 3y ago
  How taking that into account makes shooting cops any better idea? One side being bad doesn't exclude other side sins.
  - polygamous_bat 3y ago
    It's problematic because all proofs of the alleged "sins" come from a known bad actor. Or is being circumspect about the claims of those holding absolute power not part of the hacker ethos anymore?
bluescrn 3y ago
[flagged]
- Spivak 3y ago
  Charged yes, literally executed on the street without trial, no. There is absolutely no universe where someone who surrenders to the cops should be shot 50 times. I don't care if they're Jeffrey Dahmer, I don't care if they just moments before murdered someone in cold blood. Forget ethics or morals, it's a moral hazard. If the cops are just going to shoot you dead you have no incentive to stop and have every right to defend yourself against them doing so. The only way to make surrendering to the cops a feasible action is if they always stand down the instant you do.
  - bluescrn 3y ago
    If cops are in a mini-warzone with vehicles on fire and bricks and molotovs being thrown, bad outcomes are likely going to happen. (50 shots does seem extreme, but when the decision to use lethal force has been made, does the number of shots really matter?) If you're a genuinely peaceful protestor, you need to seriously consider leaving the protest area before trouble escalates to the point where police are forced to make impossible life-or-death decisions within seconds amidst chaos.
    - hydrok9 3y ago
      It does kind of paint a disturbing picture of the mindset of the shooters when so many shots are fired at a single target sitting a few feet in front of you. If they were military, would this not be considered a huge breach of protocol and training and liable for discipline? Wasting that much time and ammo on a target that was neutralized with a few shots? That really reflects poorly on your ability to assess and react to this kind of situation.
      - bluescrn 3y ago
        Definitely a sign that better training is needed. But the public reaction to a suggestion of 'more riot/combat training for cops' isn't likely to be positive.
Cupertino95014 3y ago
[flagged]
- cptskippy 3y ago
  When people say "more training" they're referring to De-escalation and crisis management training. Not a paramilitary training facility for teach cops tactical assault, and breach and raid techniques.
  - Cupertino95014 3y ago
    Although that's also part of the job. And something that's difficult to practice in a classroom.
    - cptskippy 3y ago
      Cops have created a climate and situations where they benefit from that style of training. Conducting no-knock raids and other paramilitary operations for nonviolent crimes is an unnecessary escalation. Warrior training and being trained that everyone is an adversary with execution being the go to option isn't normal and shouldn't be ingrained in folks whose day-to-day is largely nonviolent encounters.
      - Cupertino95014 3y ago
        and yet day-to-day, they risk running into a guy with a gun. Grow up.
        cptskippy 3y ago
        > Grow up. Excellent advice. It's time we stop living in or creating a fantasy world where every encounter with the public is an opportunity for a gun battle. Perhaps if they were trained in deescalation and not told to fear every person they encounter as potential threat then they wouldn't be perpetually afraid for their lives while performing routine interactions with the public? We don't need to be investing heavily in training cops for an exception encounter, we need to be providing them the training and tools necessary for their day to day duties. As a follow on, the public wouldn't be afraid for their own safety when having to interact with police.
bagels 3y ago
The article interchanges killed with murdered. It'd be nice if they talked about the circumstances a little more, though I doubt many of the killings were justified or legal.
smsm42 3y ago
Calling violent domestic terrorists engaged in attacks on police, property destruction, arson and other obviously criminal acts mere "environmental activists" is very disingenuous. It's like saying "a mathematician dies in prison after being jailed for using postal services". Technically it's not exactly a lie, but it omits so much relevant context that it is, for all practical purposes, a lie. And also a grave disservice to actual non-violent activists for preserving the environment who probably don't want to be identified with domestic terrorists under the same umbrella term.

mu53 3y ago

Likely, another case that end up only netting maybe one or two people with charges after the process is finalized. The remaining will have had their lives turned upside down by the process, and despite being innocent, will have suffered immense damage financially by the state.

deleted 3y ago

[deleted]

DoneWithAllThat 3y ago

You mean the environmental activist who shot a police officer?

PhasmaFelis 3y ago
The activist that police claim shot an officer. The state did a test to determine if there was gunpowder residue on his hands, but has so far declined to release the result.
- deleted 3y ago
  [deleted]
- Quillbert182 3y ago
  The results were released months ago, gunpowder residue was found on his hands. https://www.fox5atlanta.com/news/autopsy-cop-city-protester-manuel-teran-death-gunshot-powder-residue.amp https://www.fox5atlanta.com/news/autopsy-cop-city-protester-...
  - morelisp 3y ago
    Teran was shot in their hands. If they actually fired a weapon there'd be a lot more than five particles to find, and in a lot more places.
    - Quillbert182 3y ago
      Maybe, but the commenter above claimed that the results weren’t released, which is false.
  - bongobingo1 3y ago
    Or not? Autopsy: Gunshot residue ‘not seen’ on activist killed at police training center https://www.ajc.com/news/crime/activist-killed-at-police-training-center-site-had-more-than-50-gunshot-wounds-autopsy-finds/RSL5T2D7WJDXNIULLBL6ZUZADE/ https://www.ajc.com/news/crime/activist-killed-at-police-tra... "According to the autopsy sent to ABC News, Teran did not have gunpowder residue on their hands. Officials claimed Teran fired the first shot at a state trooper." https://web.archive.org/web/20230419235728/https://abcnews.go.com/US/dekalb-county-releases-autopsy-cop-city-protester-manuel/story?id=98700731 https://web.archive.org/web/20230419235728/https://abcnews.g...
    - Quillbert182 3y ago
      While true, how it was explained to me was that the autopsy did a visual inspection, while the GBI test, which was done afterwards, was a more thorough chemical one. However, I don’t have a source on this one.
    - zdragnar 3y ago
      You're not going to see gunpowder residue without firing quite a few shots. The test is far more conclusion than a visual inspection.
      - hedora 3y ago
        Well, he was shot over a dozen times at close range (probably while sitting with hands up), and both palms had exit wounds. I’m not sure how well visual inspection would work with all the blood and other carnage. However, I’m also not sure if trace gunshot residue will show up on current forensics tests if multiple people empty their clips into you from a few feet away. There’s also the question of why they shot him over a dozen times while he was unarmed.
- bigstrat2003 3y ago
  Fair enough, but that's still one hell of a detail to leave out. It completely changes the nature of the case if that person did in fact shoot a police officer, and so those allegations bear mentioning even if they aren't proven yet.
- chroma 3y ago
  The guy had a gun on him. The serial number matched that of a gun he legally purchased in 2020. The bullet in the officer matched that gun. Do you think the cops shot him, then shot one of their own to make it look like self-defense? If they wanted to get away with murder they could simply claim the guy pointed the gun at them.

Steven420 3y ago

He shot and wounded a police officer

prepend 3y ago
An environmental activist who shot at, and potentially wounded, a police officer. This is like a drug trial that reports deaths and neglects that people died in a car accident. Yale should be more responsible and work harder to have accurate reports if they want people to use their reports.
- hn_throwaway_99 3y ago
  > Yale should be more responsible and work harder to have accurate reports if they want people to use their reports. Why do you think Yale even included the incident that the parent commenter was referring to?
morelisp 3y ago
There is no evidence of this and some recordings of a cop saying it was another cop.
- zaroth 3y ago
  I have no horse in this race, but there is not “no evidence”. A handgun registered to the activist was found at the scene and ballistics from the bullet that struck the officer matches that gun. Later, the crime lab reported finding gun shot residue on the activist’s hands. I think those 3 things together combined with ample witness testimony would typically be considered proof beyond reasonable doubt.
  - hedora 3y ago
    The forensic evidence says his hands were empty (exit wounds though both palms), his arms were raised, and he was probably sitting on the ground cross legged when the cops shot him at least a dozen times. The initial crime lab report showed no gun shot residue, and the forensics imply the police lied about the incident. Witnesses testimony is contradictory. In my opinion, there’s no reasonable doubt that the police murdered him, execution-style. There is reasonable doubt that he shot the officer.

hn_throwaway_99 3y ago

> Recently Georgia police killed an environmental activist protesting the construction of Cop City: I mean, thanks for the link I guess, but I'd say this sentence leaves out some very important details. Namely, that the cops are claiming that this person shot and seriously wounded a cop first. To be clear, your linked article explains how it's not really clear yet what the sequence of events were, or if the person actually shot a cop. But I'd put it like this: 1. If the person did shoot the cop first, I have no problems with the other cops opening fire. 2. If the person did not shoot the cop first, then the cops should face severe legal charges. Since the facts on the ground are not yet known, I'll withhold judgment.

eastbound 3y ago
[flagged]
- Quillbert182 3y ago
  You are arguing that climate protestors should be able to shoot people without repercussions?
  - bequanna 3y ago
    He’s arguing that people with the “correct” politics are more equal than others. Humankind went down that road plenty of times in 20th century. It always ended poorly.
- hn_throwaway_99 3y ago
  > It doesn’t matter This is insane to me. It absolutely does matter whether the person actually shot at the cops or not. The idea that people should be free to go around shooting other people because it's a cause they believe in is when society really falls apart. I am curious why my post was downvoted so much. It's like people don't want to even wait until the facts are fully known. They want to go with the side that validates their preconceived narrative (whichever narrative that is), reality be damned.

chroma 3y ago

You forgot to mention that the activist was killed because he was shooting a cop.

SamoyedFurFluff 3y ago
Is this alleged by a cop? Cops can lie under oath without consequences, unlike a regular civilian.
- chroma 3y ago
  Here’s the summary of the Georgia Bureau of Investigation’s findings: https://gbi.georgia.gov/press-releases/2023-04-14/gbi-investigates-officer-involved-shooting-following-multi-agency https://gbi.georgia.gov/press-releases/2023-04-14/gbi-invest... The protestor had a gun on him. The model and serial number matched that of a gun he purchased in 2020. The round recovered from the state trooper’s abdomen matched that gun.
  - SamoyedFurFluff 3y ago
    Okay? Georgia bureau of investigation isn’t exactly a neutral third party unfortunately, also, again, they can lie and omit without consequences. I’m pointing out that due to the existing corruption baked into the justice system and police force, it’s extremely difficult to buy anything said no matter how many fancy labels is put into it.
    - chroma 3y ago
      So what do you think happened? Did the Atlanta police place the gun at the scene and hope that the GBI would lie about the forensics results? Did they lie about the purchase records too? Did they shoot one of their own to justify murder? If they wanted to kill an activist, they could just say he was pointing a gun at them. No need to almost kill a state trooper to cover it up.
      - SamoyedFurFluff 3y ago

polygamous_bat 3y ago

[flagged]

ilyt 3y ago
How taking that into account makes shooting cops any better idea? One side being bad doesn't exclude other side sins.
- polygamous_bat 3y ago
  It's problematic because all proofs of the alleged "sins" come from a known bad actor. Or is being circumspect about the claims of those holding absolute power not part of the hacker ethos anymore?

bluescrn 3y ago

[flagged]

Spivak 3y ago
Charged yes, literally executed on the street without trial, no. There is absolutely no universe where someone who surrenders to the cops should be shot 50 times. I don't care if they're Jeffrey Dahmer, I don't care if they just moments before murdered someone in cold blood. Forget ethics or morals, it's a moral hazard. If the cops are just going to shoot you dead you have no incentive to stop and have every right to defend yourself against them doing so. The only way to make surrendering to the cops a feasible action is if they always stand down the instant you do.
- bluescrn 3y ago
  If cops are in a mini-warzone with vehicles on fire and bricks and molotovs being thrown, bad outcomes are likely going to happen. (50 shots does seem extreme, but when the decision to use lethal force has been made, does the number of shots really matter?) If you're a genuinely peaceful protestor, you need to seriously consider leaving the protest area before trouble escalates to the point where police are forced to make impossible life-or-death decisions within seconds amidst chaos.
  - hydrok9 3y ago
    It does kind of paint a disturbing picture of the mindset of the shooters when so many shots are fired at a single target sitting a few feet in front of you. If they were military, would this not be considered a huge breach of protocol and training and liable for discipline? Wasting that much time and ammo on a target that was neutralized with a few shots? That really reflects poorly on your ability to assess and react to this kind of situation.
    - bluescrn 3y ago
      Definitely a sign that better training is needed. But the public reaction to a suggestion of 'more riot/combat training for cops' isn't likely to be positive.

Cupertino95014 3y ago

[flagged]

cptskippy 3y ago
When people say "more training" they're referring to De-escalation and crisis management training. Not a paramilitary training facility for teach cops tactical assault, and breach and raid techniques.
- Cupertino95014 3y ago
  Although that's also part of the job. And something that's difficult to practice in a classroom.
  - cptskippy 3y ago
    Cops have created a climate and situations where they benefit from that style of training. Conducting no-knock raids and other paramilitary operations for nonviolent crimes is an unnecessary escalation. Warrior training and being trained that everyone is an adversary with execution being the go to option isn't normal and shouldn't be ingrained in folks whose day-to-day is largely nonviolent encounters.
    - Cupertino95014 3y ago
      and yet day-to-day, they risk running into a guy with a gun. Grow up.
      - cptskippy 3y ago
        > Grow up. Excellent advice. It's time we stop living in or creating a fantasy world where every encounter with the public is an opportunity for a gun battle. Perhaps if they were trained in deescalation and not told to fear every person they encounter as potential threat then they wouldn't be perpetually afraid for their lives while performing routine interactions with the public? We don't need to be investing heavily in training cops for an exception encounter, we need to be providing them the training and tools necessary for their day to day duties. As a follow on, the public wouldn't be afraid for their own safety when having to interact with police.

bagels 3y ago

The article interchanges killed with murdered. It'd be nice if they talked about the circumstances a little more, though I doubt many of the killings were justified or legal.

smsm42 3y ago

Calling violent domestic terrorists engaged in attacks on police, property destruction, arson and other obviously criminal acts mere "environmental activists" is very disingenuous. It's like saying "a mathematician dies in prison after being jailed for using postal services". Technically it's not exactly a lie, but it omits so much relevant context that it is, for all practical purposes, a lie. And also a grave disservice to actual non-violent activists for preserving the environment who probably don't want to be identified with domestic terrorists under the same umbrella term.