9News US Correspondent Lauren Tomasi hit by rubber bullet during Los Angeles protests
9News reporter caught in crossfire of violent protests
I wish so badly I could edit the title to more accurately reflect what happened. "Police shoot reporter in the back."
If that's what they will do to a unarmed attractive female Australian white reporter while being filmed, what they are doing to minorities must be fucking horrendous.
Exactly. They're already willing to beat them to death on camera. What the fuck are they doing with so many of them flooding the streets and kidnapping people?
Let's not jump to conclusions here, there is still time for them to kidnap her and deport her to El Salvador!!
I know "deport" is technically correct by the definition of the word, but I feel like we need to start using different terminology when they're sending people to a mega prison in a third country that they've likely never been to and have no historical or familial connection to.
This is rendition. They (we) are kidnapping and imprisoning people with no due process. It's shameful. I'm ashamed.
Rubber bullets are lethal at that range. Not "less lethal"; lethal. And that cunt cop 100% knows this. It's in the training. This was attempted murder of a member of the press.
Ok.
So, when people throw around the phrase 'rubber bullet'... it tends to conjure in most people's minds... a projectile, made of rubber, that is about the same size as a bullet.
They are not the same size as a bullet.
They are the same size as a grenade launcher round, between 30mm and 40mm, generally speaking.... which is about 3x to 5x the size of most actual bullets from a pistol or rifle, albeit not travelling as fast as either of those.
They also tend to have a metal inner core.
So its more like a slug round from an 8 to 4 gauge shotgun, with rubber coating, were you to roughly extrapolate existing shotgun gauge size/naming conventions:
Also, the actual usage manuals for these things state that... you are not to fire them directly at someone closer than approximately 200-400 feet, what you are supposed to do is fire them at the ground at a shallow angle, such that they bounce or ricochet upward at a shallow angle...
... because there is so much energy in one of these rounds that they need to be dissapated by that bounce, otherwise they are quite likely to cause serious injury or even kill someone.
That is to say, 'less than lethal' means 'potentially lethal' when used improperly, and cops routinely use them improperly all the time.
This cop who fired that round, at that range (under 200 feet, under the minimum safe distance for any kind of firing)... not only was he too close to safely fire the thing at all, it looks like he just fired it directly at her, between her knees and hip, without a bounce.
When cops say, when people say cops 'need better training', the technical details I have just outlined are part of that better training... which, in practice, they disregard all the time.
Similar wild deviations exist between manufacturer suggested usage guidelines for tasers, and how they are routinely, actually used by cops.
Another example of intentional bullshit perversion of proper use procedures is the cop 'at ease' stance, where elbows are bent and each hand is roughly up at each pectoral... this is a common, general 'idle' stance... and it often is used to obscure the view of chest mounted body cams.
In conclusion: Yes, this absolutely was an intentional attempt to murder or grievously injure a journalist, basically 2nd degree attempted murder if this was done by not-a-cop.
Also, the actual usage manuals for these things state that… you are not to fire them directly at someone closer than approximately 200-400 feet, what you are supposed to do is fire them at the ground at a shallow angle, such that they bounce or ricochet upward at a shallow angle…
This is incorrect, but a very widespread misunderstanding.
Guidelines from the Geneva Human Rights Platform suggest that rubber bullets should be directed at the lower body (the guidelines actually caution against “skip-firing” or shooting at the ground first, because it makes them too unpredictable). The potential for a rubber bullet to ricochet, Heisler explains, makes for a dangerous situation. https://www.inverse.com/mind-body/rubber-bullets-cannot-be-used-safely
Kinda makes you wonder why the manufacturers would design a weapon that needs to be shot at the ground for an inaccurate bank shot rather than just ramp down the speed of the projectile.
You can see the cop aims low. His intent was to harass and drive away. A real chud.
There have been cases of reporters getting hit with plastic or less-lethal rounds in the head... With a helmet on... And being brain damaged for life.
The reporter must be made of steel because she laughs it off but those rounds can blind or break bones.
She's laughing it off because she is relatively young, in good shape, has media training... and is in all likelihood currently in shock, flooded with adrenaline.
Within 6 hours she will have a bruise the diameter of a soccer ball, and she almost certainly has a or multiple fractured bones, though they are likely hairline, fissure or impacted partial fractures, not complete breaks.
EDIT: Reporter must be made of steel you say?
The "less lethal" means "less lethal than a bullet". They are less lethal than a bullet, but there's a reason that they don't use the term "non-lethal".
Are we great again yet? Or do we need to be made great again again again and again?
Unpopular Opinion: Y'all were never great. The country had one brief period of some sanity before it got dropkicked out the door by Reagan. The only difference between the United States and Russia is good PR and even better propaganda. The United States is offensive to common sense and human decency on every fundamental level, from it's inception until today. Things are just more obvious now. That's the only difference.
Oh come on! At one point, through almost an accident of history, our country was still able to make things, build things, and pump out babies while the rest of the organized world had to reassemble their firebombed and nuked cities.
Come on… other than the eugenics movement the 20’s sound decent. Lots of nice art deco a few years later….
Take that with the mid 50’s though the late 70’s and you’re talking about a solid half century. It’s not a bad run given our assumed trajectory ;-)
I was always kind looking forward to seeing the dystopian wasteland phase.
That is an incredibly bad take. One so fundamentally poor, indeed obtuse, that this comment has to be filed under, " you've got to be fucking kidding me"
Don't expect a response from me. I won't waste time on stupidity.
You think the U.S. was great in the late 70? I guess if you were a straight white guy then of course.
The US threw over 100,000 of its own citizens in concentration camps 60 years before Reagan was president. You're giving the man far too much credit.
The US had a period of "greatness" shortly after WWII.
Why was the US "great" in the 1950s and 1960s?
So yeah, people's grandpas were able to buy a house and support a family working a menial job for a brief period after WWII. But, that's not because of some fundamental characteristic about the US that makes it better. It's mostly because the US was fortunate enough to be on the opposite side of the planet from one of the most destructive wars in history.
We're getting greater. Gotta get rid of anybody with pronouns, skin, or who is awake.
That includes you, queers, and you, darkies! And you, brownies! And don't forget the people that believe in gods. And likely the people that don't, too. And anybody that disagrees.
Ok. Now, who's left?
Now who doesn't fit in? Who's the deviant, now? We gotta keep pruning and killing and sowing unhappiness.
Only once we reach the end, will we be great.
You do realize that the people who voted for Trump are loving all of this. They want a police state. Because they believe that they will never be subject to it.
Let the leopards eat their faces.
They should have used the photo of the officer aiming at her.
And the title... I hate the passive voice shit with pigs.
"Hit by rubber bullet"
The man aimed at her and opened fire. It's on camera. "Shot by cop."
"Intercepted non-lethal round from law enforcement."
"Crossed paths with lawfully-launched projectile. "
"Interfered with first-amendment suppression."
In the article they show the video of her being shot at and also describe what happened as the officer aming and shooting her
“Hit by rubber bullet” as if it was a stray. Watch the live broadcast and it’s clear as day the shooter lifted his gun and aimed straight at her without provocation
Ya, wtf, I opened it up and was like that dude shot her on purpose. Standing there with a film crew around her. Should charge that cop with assault.
It's the BLM protests all over again... Including them taking shots at the press.
What legal reason would the police have for shooting journalists who are in no way in the midst of any violence?
edit: looks like they are going to claim she was blocking traffic, even though the car could have used the other lane.
Is it standard to shoot people who are blocking traffic?
The car that hadn't even come round the corner yet?
People seem to be rising up, at least. Finally. Hopefully momentum keeps them going and they start organizing a bit better and being more impactful.. Let's start the revolution.
Need more pixels
Its kinda weird how dude looks like a cutout cop in both photos.
ENHANCE!
CIS/NCIS (mmm gibbs) really did fuck my expectations about resolution.
You have to say "alexa" first.
Looks like a bean bag, a rubber bullet at that range would have done more damage.
I'm surprised they're using rubber bullets and not proper ones.
Nice bait
You're saying the shooting was justified?
They're a one day old account posting nonsense. They aren't serious
Loser shit
This calls for some Lee Greenwood in the background
/ironic
Did we watch the same video? The cop did that on purpose. There wasn't anyone else to shoot at there.
The only other people were other press. There were camera and microphone operators. Looking at the video, it's so obvious that the cop aimed at the press and then shot.
Is there any way to tell what kind of cop that was?
My extensive experience leads me to think he is a bastard
A bastard.
easy way: they were a cop. all types are the same: bastard traitor terrorists.
I'd like to present a different view. It doesn't excuse the shot, but it could offer an explanation better than "the officer took aim and shot the journalist for shits and giggles"
The officer clearly took aim and shot the journalist on purpose. But when the camera turns 180 to GTFO you see a crowd. It would seem, to me at least, that the members of the press were positioned between the police and the protesters.
It can be hard to tell from that angle, and with no context, how the lines were drawn. But let's, for the sake of the argument, just go with this assumption. It would appear that the police wanted to get the press to fuck on out of there, so there would be no bystanders before pushing the protesters back.
Doesn't that make it OK? Not really. One could argue that police wouldn't want to hurt the press, and getting them out was necessary. One could also be lead to believe that the police could have other motives for not wanting the press there with their pesky cameras.
Also, crossfire? Nobody else was shooting. It was just cops.
My local news said «when the police aimed at her and shot» at lest some can see what’s up
They always do