A woman is dead following a “tragic chain of events” that began with a bomb threat against Republican Congresswoman Marjorie Taylor Greene at her Rome home, police said.
A woman is dead following a “tragic chain of events” that began with a bomb threat against Republican Congresswoman Marjorie Taylor Greene at her Rome home, police said.
Exactly, so not rushing to the scene of the crime , but going to change clothes. If their expertise was needed immediately they would have headed right to the scene, and if equipment was needed it would have met them there. Of course it’s all moot because if you actually read the article, you’d see that the bomb threat was made on Friday, and this happened on the following Monday. So tell me again what they’re responding to? Tell me again why he had to kill this woman? Did this even have anything to do with the bomb threat or are they just using it as an excuse when they really just killed a woman?
Ahhh… Okay. But wait, the equipment can’t teleport or drive itself there, right? So maybe this person was doing that, getting the equipment there, so other people could drive straight there?
They never said that, lol
What do you mean maybe this person was doing that? Where are on Earth you getting that from? They’re absolutely implying the death of this woman was justifiable due to an emergency. An emergency that didn’t exist. Which I note that you didn’t address at all.
Where? They only said it wasn’t click bait and that the accident happened while the officer was responding. “They’re absolutely implying the death of this woman was justifiable due to an emergency.” They never ever say it was justifiable. Show me where.
I said implying genius you just quoted me saying that. By saying that the motors was hit while the police were responding. That part. That’s called justification.
I noticed yet again you ignored the pertinent part of my comment though. Almost like you don’t want to bring it up.
I didn’t answer that part because it was irrelevant to anything I was saying. And no, I don’t agree that saying an officer responding to something getting into an accident “implies” it is justified. Much less do I agree that someone stating that fact means they’re implying they personally thought it was justified.
Stating a fact? What fact? Because if you’re going to say it’s a fact they were responding to a bomb threat then it seems like you do need to address the other point. The one you’ve been dancing around the entire time. The one that invalidates everything else you’ve been saying.
What the fuck am I dancing around? I was just saying that the officer was driving to the HQ and in the process of responding to a threat.
Listen, this story is fucked. There’s like a million fuck ups involved. We don’t need to make up new ones to criticize them. An officer getting into a wreck and killing someone is bad regardless of whether they’re in the process of responding to a call or not or even on duty at all. The fact that they were responding to a threat (however fucking late lmao, I would’ve expected the mailbox blown up by the) doesn’t change it. It’s stupid and awful.
I’m not dancing around anything. You’re equating people correcting that the officer was responding to a dispatch (as opposed to just driving to work as part of their commute or something) while they got into a wreck that killed someone as them saying that makes it okay, but nobody has said that. Nobody has tried to say anything anywhere close to something like this was some sort of acceptable collateral damage of the policing process lol.
What threat?