‘Assassinated in cold blood’: activist killed protesting Georgia’s ‘Cop City’
theguardian.com
theguardian.com
Reality: Activist was "protesting" (ie. camping out) at the future site of a police training facility, cops arrived to kick them out, and there was a shoot-out that resulted in the activist being shot dead and a cop being injured.
I'm not sure how the title got past the editors, considering how misleading it is. It's technically true that the "assassinated in cold blood" part was a quote, but presenting it at face value, when there's little evidence of wrongdoing by the cops is wholly irresponsible for a seemingly reputable publication like the guardian. A much better headline would be "activist killed in shootout with police", or even "‘Assassinated in cold blood’, Mother claims: activist killed protesting Georgia’s ‘Cop City’"
Also, I noticed the article was also exceedingly skeptical about the state's version of events:
>Officials say Manuel shot first at a state trooper “without warning” and an officer or officers returned fire, but they have produced no evidence for the claim. The trooper was described as stable and in hospital Thursday.
but the press release have since provided additional details to support the state's version of events
>Forensic ballistic analysis has confirmed that the projectile recovered from the trooper’s wound matches Teran’s handgun.
But I'll let that slide given that the update came on January 20th, and the article was published early January 21th at 5am.
The editors of The Guardian want their readers misled. This is very deliberate. Everything the article says will be true if taken literally, except the quotes of interviewed people, which will often be lies. The crucial facts to understanding what happened will be either completely omitted (omission of facts is not a falsehood), or delegated to second half of of the article, and even then, it will typically be in vague, unclear terms. This is how media operates today, and it shouldn’t be surprising that the trust in media is collapsing across the board.
Except that it doesn't: the fact that a cop was shot doesn't imply that Teran shot first. In terms of evidence of that specific claim, the evidence is exactly as it stood at the time of publication (and at the time of me writing this.)
Second, https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/the-field-of-fire...
Note the distinct absence of any evidence that protesters fired at police. The police have access to hundreds of cameras at the scene, from bodycams to professional videographers on police payroll, to drones and aircraft.
If there was evidence that protesters fired at police, you can bet the police would be publishing it.
Decent probability this was friendly fire.
Ha. No. Now realize that every other article in the Guardian is just as deliberately misleading.
I'm not sure what's the point you're trying to make here. If you read my previous comment, you'd realize that I didn't rule out that this was an "assassination", only that there wasn't any evidence to support that claim, and absent that it was responsible to leap to the conclusion of "assassination".
https://gbi.georgia.gov/press-releases/2023-01-20/gbi-invest...
>UPDATE > > Atlanta, GA (January 20, 2023) – We are releasing a photo of the handgun that was in Manuel Esteban Paez Teran’s possession when a Georgia State Patrol trooper was shot on January 18 at the site of the future Atlanta Public Safety Training Center. The handgun is described as a Smith & Wesson M&P Shield 9mm. Forensic ballistic analysis has confirmed that the projectile recovered from the trooper’s wound matches Teran’s handgun. Other preliminary information released in this case is consistent with the investigation so far.
It also seems plausible (although less likely) that his gun was fired by someone else. Either way, the important fact is that we do not know more because there is no bodycam footage.
But again, that's the less likely scenario. I still think it's more likely the cops shot at him, he shot back, and then they killed him in a second volley. This would be compatible with all public facts about the case.
I think for something to be deemed “just as plausible”, you would need to demonstrate that by in large police fire on subjects first when unprovoked at a greater rate than when provoked. I am not saying that police never act unprovoked, but I’d bet it is statistically higher that when there is a weapons discharge involving police, there was a provocation from someone first.
Not exactly: I'd only need to demonstrate that police do fire on citizens with some regularity, without regard for whether they also happen to fire on people shooting at them (which I'd expect them to!).
And indeed, they do[1].
[1]: https://www.washingtonpost.com/graphics/investigations/polic...
Your scenario, while perhaps remotely possible, seems to be the most unlikely scenario within the known evidence. The most likely scenario was he took his gun and shot a cop and was promptly shot for that action which took his life. Whether or not he shot first really doesn’t matter to the situation. I am sure he was aware that a police presence in his area was possible given the protest. I think it’s likely that police identified themselves before any gunfire took place (it’s what they do, because it generally helps protect them by warning folks around them that they are police). If he was shot first, it’s entirely reasonable to believe he was aware that he was shot by police, still engaged, fired, and shot a cop.
>>Officials say Manuel shot first at a state trooper “without warning” and an officer or officers returned fire, but they have produced no evidence for the claim.
Except of course…for the trooper with the bullet wound in the hospital that is communicated in the very next sentence…
>>The trooper was described as stable and in hospital Thursday.
How does this story get past an editor?
I don't dispute this. But "provocation" is not a capital crime in this country.
There are simply too many cases of police lying to protect each other for their testimony to be accorded much if any weight, and it's well known that the costs for honest police who testify against the transgressions of corrupt police are extremely high. The police had the ability to record exactly what happened. If there decided not to do so, we should presume they didn't want the details of what happened to come out, and we should assume that all police testimony without corroborating hard evidence is coordinated and false.
Dangerous arrest? They weren't raiding a cartel den. They were evicting protesters/activists from a forest. You then argue that absent any evidence, we should assume that the cops were the bad guys and the activists were the good guys. But you can't have it both ways. If the activists were known to be dangerous, then we shouldn't assume that the cops were engaging in "murder". For instance, I doubt that The Guardian or many anti-police commentators would be decrying the lack of bodycam footage if they were raiding a cartel compound. On the flip side, if the activists weren't known to be dangerous, then your argument for "the police went into the woods to make a dangerous arrest without any attempt to document their actions" falls apart. Don't get me wrong, I'm pro body cams and think they should be present in cases like this, but assuming every instance without bodycam is police acting in bad faith is just political grandstanding.
Do you have a better way of changing police policy to require the use of body cams in situations like this? I think normalizing a presumption that the police are hiding something (even if this is not true) is the most (and possibly only) effective means getting to somewhere better than where we are today. I genuinely have no idea what happened in this case, but in the absence of video evidence many people are going to presume the worst, and I can't prove that they are wrong. Regardless of whether the police acted appropriately in this instance, if we want to preserve respect for legitimate police authority (and I think it's important that we do) I think we need to force the police to document their interactions rather than demanding they always being taken at their word.
Making an honest effort to convince lawmakers and voters that we need more accountability in the form of bodycams? I know it's hard, but it's certainly going to be more effective than being intellectually dishonest by pretending that every police shooting without a bodycam involves police malfeasance. I use pretend, because I think even the most diehard bodycam proponent doesn't seriously think that every (or even most) police shooting has police acting maliciously. Doing so basically amounts to chanting "ACAB", which is great for signaling to your fellow activist friends that you also hate cops, but isn't going change hearts and minds. Remember, most americans trust the police[1], so chanting stuff like "ACAB" or "assume it's murder unless they can prove otherwise" is only going to alienate them.
[1] https://www.pewresearch.org/science/2022/02/15/americans-tru...
We've had to ask you this before.
Law enforcement in the US (and many other countries, including others where environmental protesters are often killed) has been know and documented to lie routinely, so is not a reliable source to take on face value.
A bullet from his gun was found in the state trooper's abdomen, and I find it extremely hard to believe that Teran shot a state trooper after being shot multiple times, especially given cops' tendencies to shoot until a target stops moving.