“I don’t understand that feeling that makes you or anyone else want so badly to defend the killing of an American citizen when we know police are capable to capture and not kill.”

“I am saying that, because of systemic inequity, all cases of police shootings of POC needs to be carefully investigated.”

Look, you point a gun at the police and threaten to kill them, you are likely to be shot and possibly killed by them as you are posing a threat not only to the police but to public safety, and it is their duty to eliminate any such threats.

“She was saying crazy stuff. That just shouldn’t carry a death sentence.”

“the simple fact that a child was involved should have make a difference.”

“She had a gun, so what?”

“And how trying to get in with a key is a way not to escalate the situation?”

And there are numerous examples of people doing “exactly fucking that” and getting shot / killed - because in such a situation, the police are justified in shooting the person pointing the gun at them.

“If you rake in boatloads of cash defending a rapist, then yeah, you’re trash to me.”

*she’s representing a person accused of rape as the defense in a pending trial.

You seem to be conflating ‘representing a client as the defense in a pending trial’ with ‘defending a rapist (for their alleged actions)’. There is a difference between the two.

“just because she’s doing her job doesn’t mean that she’s 1.) not a horrible person”

Weekend matinees are generally considered “child-specific” time in movie theaters (meaning that is when people tend to bring children to the movies, and it is well known to be the case). That doesn’t mean that children are banned at all other times.

That’s not how white balance works. The explanation is that her hair is lighter underneath.

“Society and the legal system are static, nothing changes, everything is right as rain, as it is?”

“The point is that to the extent it’s been happening for decades, it’s only made it onto people’s radars in a major way recently”

Both the practice and the technology for it have been around for decades - it may be more widespread because of the ubiquity of smartphones, but it certainly is not new nor only possible because of them.

It could easily be a cropped photo of someone who was completely aware of (and ok with) their photo being taken.

The First Amendment presents a bit of an obstacle. There are laws in some states that specify certain types of photos (those capturing nudity or even undergarments), but those laws also require the acts of the photographer (and sometimes even the purpose of the photos) meet other specific criteria as well. If…

“Also, is the main pic on this article taken with that girl’s consent?”