351
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[-] partial_accumen@lemmy.world 78 points 7 months ago

A man was shot and killed while exchanging gunfire with Harris County Sheriff’s Office deputies following a traffic stop in north Houston Sunday.

He wasn't shot because he was a Sovcit idiot, he was shot because he was shooting at police. Why even mention he was a Sovcit idiot? It doesn't change the story at all.

The site might as well have: "Man with blue pants shot, killed during exchange with Harris County deputies"

[-] gregorum@lemm.ee 128 points 7 months ago* (last edited 7 months ago)

FTA:

Deputies conducted a traffic stop on the vehicle with expired tags and a broken taillight on FM 1960. Sheriff Ed Gonzalez said the man refused to exit his vehicle and identified himself as a sovereign citizen.

Deputies engaged the man in conversation for over an hour in an attempt to remove him from the vehicle, Gonzalez said.

Refusing to comply with their demands, he drove away from the scene and engaged in a brief pursuit with deputies before his vehicle was brought to a stop on the corner of FM 1960 and Ella Boulevard.

After stepping out of his vehicle, the man, armed with a pistol, began shooting at deputies. They exchanged gunfire and the man was shot dead. No deputies were injured during the exchange, Gonzalez said.

Ahem…

He wasn’t shot because he was a Sovcit idiot…

Oh, yes he was.

…he was shot because he was shooting at police.

His “ideology” dictated a pathology that led to a predictable outcome. The article is a clear and concise description of the standard sovcit idiot playbook, however cops are usually successful in arresting the dopes before it gets shooty. Not always.

[-] Fredselfish@lemmy.world 77 points 7 months ago

An hour of talking to the man. Must been white because a black man would not get this treatment if asked to exit vehicle. Matter of fact they probably wouldn't have asked.

[-] bobs_monkey@lemm.ee 30 points 7 months ago

Either way, refusing to get out of your car when a cop tells you to is never going to end well for the driver, regardless of race. Especially in Texas, and doubly so when you try to take off on them. Cops don't tend to like people flouting their authority.

[-] jkrtn@lemmy.ml 1 points 7 months ago

IDK some power-tripping assholes will take any excuse to open fire. I can respect people who don't move at all for their own safety. They'll be enraged and power-tripping, so likelihood of being dragged out of the car and unconstitutionally beaten is high. But they have fewer excuses to pretend they fear for their lives.

Really cannot drive away, tho.

[-] HopeOfTheGunblade@kbin.social 14 points 7 months ago

You know what amazes me, is that there are black sovcits. I saw video one of them shot lately, and honestly I appreciated the cops being as boundedly patient with him as I've seen them be with white sovcits, but holy shit I do not get how black people are willing to play that particular game given all of the times the cops have, in very genteel language, failed to uphold professional standards when interacting with someone with more than a minimal amount of melanin.

[-] Fredselfish@lemmy.world 5 points 7 months ago

Really didn't know that, thought it was white hicks that believed in that crap.

[-] Serinus@lemmy.world 15 points 7 months ago

The real lesson we should get out of all of this is that we're not that much different.

White people should absolutely care about Black Lives Matter, even just for selfish reasons. Because as soon as a cop decides, he will treat you or your kids in the exact same way. They have a predilection to treat black people as inferior, but as soon as you do anything they don't like you're in the exact same bucket.

We should all be on the same side, and it's for some kind of real police accountability.

[-] tate@lemmy.sdf.org 13 points 7 months ago

Sovereign citizen is an extreme delusional fantasy that only the whitest idiots are entitled enough to indulge.

[-] halcyoncmdr@lemmy.world 8 points 7 months ago* (last edited 7 months ago)

I say we indulge them and take that to its logical conclusion.

Sovereign citizen? Ok so not a citizen of the United States. Do they have a Visa to be in the country? No? Then they're here illegally and should be deported. Process them like any other illegal immigrant.

In the meantime, we all know they're actually US citizens, but if they keep claiming they aren't a citizen then they obviously must have stolen that citizen's identity. Process it that way.

They'll very quickly admit they are actually a US citizen, and thus must comply with US laws, when they're looking at being deported to a country they know nothing about and losing everything they have here for fraud and identity theft.

[-] EmpathicVagrant@lemmy.world 3 points 7 months ago

If they truly believed any of what they utter they would have done the paperwork to relinquish their citizenship.

[-] jordanlund@lemmy.world 10 points 7 months ago
[-] solidgrue@lemmy.world 13 points 7 months ago

I misread your post, but the prima facie is that he drew a weapon on law enforcement, that as a result.of being a sovcit idiot.

Chorine in the gene.pool. What a bitch.

[-] inb4_FoundTheVegan@lemmy.world 24 points 7 months ago

the man refused to exit his vehicle and identified himself as a sovereign citizen. Deputies engaged the man in conversation for over an hour in an attempt to remove him from the vehicle.

It's obviously relevant context. This situation wouldn't exist if he wasn't a sovidiot.

[-] Steve@startrek.website 1 points 7 months ago

Its implying a motive

[-] homesweethomeMrL@lemmy.world 40 points 7 months ago

Why did he open fire on the cops?

Meth? Personal grudge? Former cop whistleblower fighting for his life? Just hates cops and shoots at people all the time? Suicidal? It’s part of the Who What Where Why When formula.

It’s a valid question, and valid to include in the story and, yes, in the headline.

[-] Arbiter@lemmy.world 8 points 7 months ago

The article says he may have had felony warrants.

[-] bobs_monkey@lemm.ee 8 points 7 months ago

Probably not the first time this yoyo thought laws don't apply to him. Special little snowflake, that one.

[-] jordanlund@lemmy.world 22 points 7 months ago

The fact that he was a SovCit idiot prompted him to shoot at the cops. It's relevant background.

[-] CaptainSpaceman@lemmy.world 6 points 7 months ago

Except they dont say "gunfire exchange" so the headline def means to slant towards sovcit being the victim

[-] jordanlund@lemmy.world 6 points 7 months ago

You have to read more than the headline:

"After stepping out of his vehicle, the man, armed with a pistol, began shooting at deputies. They exchanged gunfire and the man was shot dead. No deputies were injured during the exchange, Gonzalez said."

[-] CaptainSpaceman@lemmy.world 2 points 7 months ago

Im just commenting on the clickbait and slanted headline and its intended effects.

I did read the article and thats how I came to see the slant, and why I chose to comment on it.

[-] kent_eh@lemmy.ca 2 points 7 months ago

the headline def means to slant towards sovcit being the victim

Or lazily slanting towards "ACAB".

[-] interdimensionalmeme@lemmy.ml 14 points 7 months ago

That would be like describing 9/11 as "Man flies plane into building, twice". I imagine the cops screamed at him to submit, he refused then violence.

[-] WarmSoda@lemm.ee 12 points 7 months ago* (last edited 7 months ago)

Because they had a conversation for an hour and a half talking to the guy before he drove off on them. That's an hour and a half of sovcit circle talk bullshit.

this post was submitted on 21 Apr 2024
351 points (96.1% liked)

News

23311 readers
3600 users here now

Welcome to the News community!

Rules:

1. Be civil


Attack the argument, not the person. No racism/sexism/bigotry. Good faith argumentation only. This includes accusing another user of being a bot or paid actor. Trolling is uncivil and is grounds for removal and/or a community ban. Do not respond to rule-breaking content; report it and move on.


2. All posts should contain a source (url) that is as reliable and unbiased as possible and must only contain one link.


Obvious right or left wing sources will be removed at the mods discretion. We have an actively updated blocklist, which you can see here: https://lemmy.world/post/2246130 if you feel like any website is missing, contact the mods. Supporting links can be added in comments or posted seperately but not to the post body.


3. No bots, spam or self-promotion.


Only approved bots, which follow the guidelines for bots set by the instance, are allowed.


4. Post titles should be the same as the article used as source.


Posts which titles don’t match the source won’t be removed, but the autoMod will notify you, and if your title misrepresents the original article, the post will be deleted. If the site changed their headline, the bot might still contact you, just ignore it, we won’t delete your post.


5. Only recent news is allowed.


Posts must be news from the most recent 30 days.


6. All posts must be news articles.


No opinion pieces, Listicles, editorials or celebrity gossip is allowed. All posts will be judged on a case-by-case basis.


7. No duplicate posts.


If a source you used was already posted by someone else, the autoMod will leave a message. Please remove your post if the autoMod is correct. If the post that matches your post is very old, we refer you to rule 5.


8. Misinformation is prohibited.


Misinformation / propaganda is strictly prohibited. Any comment or post containing or linking to misinformation will be removed. If you feel that your post has been removed in error, credible sources must be provided.


9. No link shorteners.


The auto mod will contact you if a link shortener is detected, please delete your post if they are right.


10. Don't copy entire article in your post body


For copyright reasons, you are not allowed to copy an entire article into your post body. This is an instance wide rule, that is strictly enforced in this community.

founded 1 year ago
MODERATORS