Seriously? That was their defense? Well at least I understand now. I knowit was mentioned but I guess I wasn’t reading well enough to pick that up. I figured it was just being mentioned in passing, after all, anybody would want to go on exotic trips, blabla bla.

I really don’t understand why all the reports on this case focus on the Instagram thing so much?

Anachronism, I would think

Every job should have this. If he *wasn’t * a murderer, he shouldn’t lose his house just because they drag their butts on the investigation.

I’ve answered you fucking question multiple times, you’re just too fucking dense

Sorry, did you have an argument? Because you didn’t actually respond to my points, you just repeated “nuh uh”. Pro-tip: you don’t get to say “your logic is absurd” without making an actual argument.

This is good satire. 10/10, would snark again.

Look, I get it: You have strong opinions, and you don’t care about reality, dagnabbit! But, this is tedious. Allow me to break it down for you:

Well, I would say their job requires them to have a basic understanding of how to approach a scene and suspect. Which begins long before that “split second” that you’re appealing to without answering my question *or* addressing the fact that *they were wrong*, and as a result *killed an unarmed man*.

How about just waiting *until there’s an actual threat*. Remember that here *there wasn’t one*. They shot an unarmed man. The bar should be pretty darn high—or are you saying (to throw your own kind of argument back) that they should just shoot everybody they want because they *might* have a gun?

“ if you don’t want to look at the values of each instance on their own, you’re making the same all inclusive judgement that you’re preaching against.”

Bullshit. The cops *should* have an obligation to find out what’s going on before killing people. That they didn’t is, yes, another tally mark.

It’s still fifteen bucks on steam a decade later. That seems.... disproportionate.

“I’m trying to be better.”

They’re not saying these people shouldn’t exist, they’re saying they’re irresponsibly having too many kids which reinforces a cyclic poverty. And they’re absolutely correct. There are other reasons *too*, but don’t pretend that isn’t a huge one.

Those don’t actually keep the kid safe, of course, so it’s rather a disconnect argument.

Interesting.

Yeah, this is a bullshit response. Vega has not, as presented in this article, taken responsibility for being abusive. Her argument is that leaving kids with abusers is good because she was mad at the system WHEN SHE WAS AN ABUSER. I read the article. Did you?

I think the commenter was more referencing the fact that this article (really, all the articles in this series) has argued systemic racism for whatis actually just.... plain child abuse.

This is a bad series.