F
Fru
Guest
But it's clear the video isn't just 'interesting' to you, Fru. You're using it as evidence to drive a narrative. I mean, you literally posted three paragraphs to defend yourself and ended it by saying what we know your honest intent is here (in bold). You've also been more explicit in posts since this one. Why beat around the bush?
I'm not saying your discussion is wrong to have. What's wrong is the artful misrepresentation.
Second of all, the specific tweet you shared here came from a man who's saying 'if that had been me who attacked the cop (aka a black man), I would've been shot and become another martyr for cop vs. black violence.' I know you know this.
Which leads me back to the points I again raise - why is this video sufficient enough evidence to buoy that conversation? What is it proving? What are the details of that arrest? What do we know about those police officers - are they racist, are they not? Have they been accused of racial profiling in previous arrests? Without knowledge of the answers, the 'interest' in that video smells like a lot of misleading garbage just to stir the pot.
I'm using it as evidence that people can assault an officer, threaten someone's life, disobey commands etc and not be killed for it the way so many people of color are. I see it as evidence that police can handle violent situations without resorting to killing people. I don't see how that's artful misrepresentation.
Yes, that's the impression given by the author of the tweet. If that's how he feels, that's how he feels. I didn't write it. My focus has been on the content of the video.
You're asking me specifics about the video to which I obviously cannot answer. However, just because I don't know every detail about it doesn't mean it's invaluable. Like I've said multiple times already, this video is evidence that people don't have to be killed, there's value in that.
I don't see it as pot stirring garbage because I think it's facilitated a decent, constructive, civil discussion.