this post was submitted on 21 Aug 2023
686 points (96.6% liked)

politics

18980 readers
5385 users here now

Welcome to the discussion of US Politics!

Rules:

  1. Post only links to articles, Title must fairly describe link contents. If your title differs from the site’s, it should only be to add context or be more descriptive. Do not post entire articles in the body or in the comments.
  2. Articles must be relevant to politics. Links must be to quality and original content. Articles should be worth reading. Clickbait, stub articles, and rehosted or stolen content are not allowed. Check your source for Reliability and Bias here.
  3. Be civil, No violations of TOS. It’s OK to say the subject of an article is behaving like a (pejorative, pejorative). It’s NOT OK to say another USER is (pejorative). Strong language is fine, just not directed at other members. Engage in good-faith and with respect! This includes accusing another user of being a bot or paid actor. Trolling is uncivil and is grounds for removal and/or a community ban.
  4. No memes, trolling, or low-effort comments. Reposts, misinformation, off-topic, trolling, or offensive.
  5. Vote based on comment quality, not agreement. This community aims to foster discussion; please reward people for putting effort into articulating their viewpoint, even if you disagree with it.
  6. No hate speech, slurs, celebrating death, advocating violence, or abusive language. This will result in a ban. Usernames containing racist, or inappropriate slurs will be banned without warning

We ask that the users report any comment or post that violate the rules, to use critical thinking when reading, posting or commenting. Users that post off-topic spam, advocate violence, have multiple comments or posts removed, weaponize reports or violate the code of conduct will be banned.

All posts and comments will be reviewed on a case-by-case basis. This means that some content that violates the rules may be allowed, while other content that does not violate the rules may be removed. The moderators retain the right to remove any content and ban users.

That's all the rules!

Civic Links

Register To Vote

Citizenship Resource Center

Congressional Awards Program

Federal Government Agencies

Library of Congress Legislative Resources

The White House

U.S. House of Representatives

U.S. Senate

Partnered Communities:

News

World News

Business News

Political Discussion

Ask Politics

Military News

Global Politics

Moderate Politics

Progressive Politics

UK Politics

Canadian Politics

Australian Politics

New Zealand Politics

founded 1 year ago
MODERATORS
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[–] [email protected] 15 points 1 year ago (4 children)

I'm not saying this to cast doubt on anything, I believe the reason given for the attack, I'm simply curious (probably because I used to be a first responder). One thing I haven't seen explained in the articles I've read about this story is how do we know that he assaulted her for the flag and then shot her? Who called 911? How did they know who the suspect was?

The most plausible explanation to me is she was still alive when the cops got there but died before the paramedics were able to transport her, so she was able to tell them something, since no witnesses were mentioned. Second most plausible is there were witnesses.

[–] [email protected] 10 points 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year ago) (2 children)

Wasn't she killed in her store? Virtually every store these days has security cameras. As for who called 911, guns are loud. Unless you're in the middle of nowhere, there will be people who hear the gun shot, even if they don't see what happened.

[–] [email protected] 1 points 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year ago)

Yes but I thought I read somewhere that the shooter was confronted soon after (a couple hours?) which would be very fast to find and go through security footage. And yes about the gun, but that wouldn't necessarily get them the motive and description of the suspect. It doesn't really matter to me that much anyway, it was just an unknown aspect of a story I am interested in.

[–] aidan 1 points 1 year ago

Having a security camera doesn't mean their monitored off-site. A lot(maybe most) of the time they aren't. But agreed that guns are loud.

[–] [email protected] 10 points 1 year ago

Craziest exception to the hearsay rule is the dying declaration.

[–] aidan 3 points 1 year ago (1 children)

"I'm not questioning the reason for the attack but how do we know that's the reason."

It's acceptable to question sources. This story is definitely likely true, but there also plenty of cases of stuff written online(and what police say) being untrue and it's okay to probe it a little.

[–] [email protected] 2 points 1 year ago

I agree, but with the amount of trolling some people do regarding LGBT stuff I wanted to be very clear I'm not one of them. Since every article is stating it as fact and not using "alleged" I assume the journalists know with some certainty, but I haven't seen it detailed anywhere.