I think it’s a matter of decorum. In general we shouldn’t attack people’s kids (when they’re minors) for normal occurrences, even if their a public figure.

I was against bashing Barron when he was a minor, and I’m against bashing Gus until he’s of legal age. In general, however, I refrain from bashing people and would encourage the same decorum from others.

Being able to criticize is not open license to do so in my opinion.

Him, most other world leaders, most of the populace, etc etc. Under your definition nearly everyone is an evil piece of shit. /Shrug

You’re not wrong. NCOs don’t have commissions, so they’re lower ranked than commissioned officers. Him being the “highest ranked officer” is incorrect, and anyone who has been in the military would immediately latch on to that.

Cmd Sgt Maj is an honorable rank that takes a career to earn - no need to overinflate it with garbage to make the point. It’s impressive on its own.

Edit: for clarification, John McCain was a Navy Captain (O3) which is higher ranked than Cmd Sgt Maj (E9). Therefore Tim Walz isn’t the highest ranked officer to serve. I love Tim, but it’s incorrect to state than an E9 outranks an O3.

What propaganda are you talking about? He’s leaving office, so what is left to manipulate here other than his legacy, which doesn’t really impact anyone?

I think that analogy is worse. If my scumbag sibling killed someone and I didn’t say they were a scumbag and distance myself from them and instead defended them and enabled them to continue being a scumbag I damn well deserve others’ ire.

This isn’t the one bad cop in America, this is just one of many whose colleagues enable and approve of their actions. Often defenders of these shitbags say, “it’s just one bad apple” but they forget the rest of the saying that one bad apple spoils the bunch. In this case, too, the people that should hold themselves to a higher standard as a group are the ones making themselves look shitty by not doing so.

Not sure how people with family and friends of “decent cops” can defend them as a whole, particularly when most of them call on their cop friend or family member to help get them out of tickets. They’re just as bad (lol).

I think the bit of context here that is lacking is why she felt the need to drop to the floor in the first place. Was she hurt? Dizzy? Pain medication kick in? Did he point his gun at her and she reflexively dropped? The pot didn’t go with her; it was still on the sink. From the cops’ vantage point he would’ve likely seen that.

Beyond that, she’s the victim. Granted, police should use due diligence when responding to calls, but taking the stance that anyone is an adversary leads to guns being drawn and people being beaten waaay too early in the interaction and with little provocation. Suspicion of all leads to paranoid responses, and we see the fruits of that in this and other encounters.

I’f be curious to know which you see as being more important here - the cops’ life or the civilians? Just trying to understand the frame of reference.

I think you’re overstating the threat here. The above commenter, though being facetious, is making a good point. The cop told her to take her pasta off the stove and even joked with her about avoiding the steam. Then he shot her. She was standing at a sink behind a raised-bar style countertop with a pot of water. Assuming she’s going to be able to chuck it over the counter at the cop is a bit of a stretch, particularly given her demeanor throughout the encounter. Nevermind the fact that she’s standing there with two armed men that could easily kill her (and one did), it’s bonkers to assume she would have both the motive and capability to do so.

It’s one thing if she behaved erratically to that point, but she didn’t. Additionally, if the cop was really concerned about the pot he could have said, “no, stay on the couch.” It’s just an odd hill to die on stating the cop was concerned about the pot.