Article seems balanced, but the headline omits that a protester shot a policeman in the neck.
Pfhortune•1h ago
What difference does that make, exactly? I'm fairly certain there was only one finger on that trigger...
SpicyLemonZest•1h ago
It makes a difference if his compatriots knew he was going to do it, and took material steps to help him do it or help him get away with doing it. They argued, I believe, that they didn't know and only intended to have a peaceful protest, but the jury decided that's not true.
tdsanchez•53m ago
That’s a lot of words for you don’t know what actually happened. /if
SpicyLemonZest•17m ago
I don't know why you would phrase this so confrontationally. All I know is what the source article says, and it doesn't include much beyond the jury verdict that would let anyone guess what happened. If you have a link to the specific evidence that was presented at trial, or other detailed information, I'd love to see it!
UtopiaPunk•34m ago
I think the headline is valid. I'm of course aware of click-bait or otherwise misleading headlines, but in this case I think it is good. It gets right to the point it wants to make. For additional context, a reader is expected to read the article. I don't know how much information a single headline can reasonably be expected to bear.
If you are intending to spark a discussion on what is or is not justified:
1. I think it is proper for someone who shoots a person to receive stiff legal penalties, as seems to be happening here.
2. I think it is proper for accomplices of a murderer to bear some legal penalties, and the details depend a lot on the circumstances of the specific case.
3. I think it is entirely possible, that someone could be wearing black clothes (a common protest tactic) and otherwise activley involved in the protest without being an accomplice to an attempted murderer.
The Trump administration has an idealogical agenda against whoever they call the "far-left."
The concern of the article, and the concern I also share, is that they may use this case to make people who fall in category 3 (protesters they don't like, basically), to be considered category 2. And the really troubling part is that there may not even need to be a category 1!
Protesters in black clothes = domestic terrorists. That's the potential outcome that's very troubling. And also why I think the headline is pretty good.
dash2•1h ago
Pfhortune•1h ago
SpicyLemonZest•1h ago
tdsanchez•53m ago
SpicyLemonZest•17m ago
UtopiaPunk•34m ago
If you are intending to spark a discussion on what is or is not justified: 1. I think it is proper for someone who shoots a person to receive stiff legal penalties, as seems to be happening here. 2. I think it is proper for accomplices of a murderer to bear some legal penalties, and the details depend a lot on the circumstances of the specific case. 3. I think it is entirely possible, that someone could be wearing black clothes (a common protest tactic) and otherwise activley involved in the protest without being an accomplice to an attempted murderer.
The Trump administration has an idealogical agenda against whoever they call the "far-left." The concern of the article, and the concern I also share, is that they may use this case to make people who fall in category 3 (protesters they don't like, basically), to be considered category 2. And the really troubling part is that there may not even need to be a category 1!
Protesters in black clothes = domestic terrorists. That's the potential outcome that's very troubling. And also why I think the headline is pretty good.