359
submitted 2 years ago by MicroWave@lemmy.world to c/news@lemmy.world

A special prosecutor will not charge the six Georgia State Patrol troopers who shot and killed an environmental protestor at the proposed site for the controversial Atlanta Public Safety Training Center.

Manuel Esteban Paez Terán, who went by "Tortuguita" and used they/them pronouns, was shot and killed by six Georgia State Troopers on Jan. 18 as officers raided campgrounds occupied by environmental demonstrators who had allegedly been camping out for months to protest the development of the training center, dubbed "Cop City" by critics.

After months of investigating, the Stone Mountain Circuit District Attorney’s Office says the troopers' use of lethal force was "objectively reasonable under the circumstances of the case."

you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[-] PugJesus@kbin.social 37 points 2 years ago

After months of investigating, the Stone Mountain Circuit District Attorney’s Office says the troopers’ use of lethal force was “objectively reasonable under the circumstances of the case.”

In their report, officials say the troopers spoke with Tortuguita, who refused to leave and zipped up the tent in which they were living.

After an officer fired pepper balls at the tents, officials say that the environmental activist fired multiple shots - hitting Georgia State Patrol Trooper Jerry Parrish below his armor plate and above his belt on his right side and lodging the bullet in his spine. The troopers then returned fire, hitting and killing Tortuguita.

For once, I think the cops may be telling the truth. Getting a bullet in one's spine might be a bit much for a cover story.

[-] SheeEttin@lemmy.world 83 points 2 years ago

Assuming that it wasn't friendly fire they blamed on Tortuguita, anyway.

[-] Beldarofremulak@lemmy.world 44 points 2 years ago

What's crazy is this should be a ridiculous theory but cops in America have a long history of dishonesty and a lack of proactive self regulation until something gets out of control and becomes public. You aren't "taking care of mine and my own" by allowing your peers to permanently tarnish the reputation of your profession. Publicly calling out the garbage does way less harm because it shows integrity and that seeds trust. Sweeping the dirt under the rug doesn't seed trust.

[-] winterayars@sh.itjust.works 42 points 2 years ago* (last edited 2 years ago)

It was definitely friendly fire. Cops are fucking awful at containing collateral damage.

Go look at how often they shoot random bystanders, animals, whenever. Now: Who's going to be in that line of fire more than anyone else? That's right! Other cops.

(Edit)

Oh yeah from lower in the thread, it was friendly fire: https://www.npr.org/2023/03/11/1162843992/cop-city-atlanta-activist-autopsy

[-] RizzRustbolt@lemmy.world 19 points 2 years ago

"How about if we surround the tent and all start firing?"

"Jerry, that's brilliant!"

[-] ikidd@lemmy.world 3 points 2 years ago

Narrator:

It was.

[-] snooggums@kbin.social -2 points 2 years ago

The most likely scenario is the police threatened him with violence, and they started shooting pepper balls at the tent he thought they were shooting bullets and he returned fire.

[-] mycatiskai@lemmy.one 52 points 2 years ago

The victim was on his knees with his hands up when shot multiple times. There were exit wounds on his hands and arms that would have only been there if his arms were up.

The cops probably surrounded him then shot eachother, then to cover it up they shot someone afterwards with a gun found on the victim.

[-] pete_the_cat@lemmy.world 3 points 2 years ago

Cops will stick together, but I don't think it extends to "shooting each other multiple times and possibly paralyzing a fellow officer".

[-] mycatiskai@lemmy.one 16 points 2 years ago

You have two people to possibly blame for a friendly fire accident, a fellow officer who could get fired or maybe sent to jail, your other choice is the guy you just shot 56 times.

Who do you blame in that instance if you are a cop?

[-] catfish@programming.dev 7 points 2 years ago

He doesn't look the I'm carrying and will shoot some pigs if provoked part, just my assumption tho

[-] agent_flounder@lemmy.one 12 points 2 years ago

Those who knew him claimed he had committed to nonviolence.

Although apparently the ballistics report claims the bullet came from a gun Terán owned.

I'm inclined to believe the cops used excessive force since that's what they're regularly trained to do.

[-] Zaktor@sopuli.xyz 5 points 2 years ago

How are you committed to nonviolence, but buy a gun and bring it to a protest? That doesn't mean he was looking to fight or that he didn't prefer nonviolent resistance, but it's pretty incompatible with a commitment to nonviolence.

[-] agent_flounder@lemmy.one 7 points 2 years ago

A lot of unanswered questions about this situation for sure. Probably will remain that way.

[-] pete_the_cat@lemmy.world 3 points 2 years ago

Thanks for that. The above excerpt made it seem like he was an unarmed activist. Dude shot at the cops, WTF did he think was going to happen?

[-] kandoh@reddthat.com 15 points 2 years ago

I've heard on twitter from people who've been following this that the bullet came from another cop's gun.

[-] Spedwell@lemmy.world 17 points 2 years ago

That is one theory, based on a conversation captured on another (not-directly-involved, but on-site) office's bodycam footage. It isn't really conclusive, it's on-scene hearsay from what is likely the downstream end of a game of telephone.

The more productive avenue for discussions, in my opinion, is to consider whether firing pepper balls at non-violent individuals is perhaps negligent or reckless use of force, that escalates the situation without solving anything.

this post was submitted on 07 Oct 2023
359 points (98.6% liked)

News

36412 readers
706 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 biased sources will be removed at the mods’ discretion. Supporting links can be added in comments or posted separately but not to the post body. Sources may be checked for reliability using Wikipedia, MBFC, AdFontes, GroundNews, etc.


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. Clickbait titles may be removed.


Posts which titles don’t match the source may be removed. If the site changed their headline, we may ask you to update the post title. Clickbait titles use hyperbolic language and do not accurately describe the article content. When necessary, post titles may be edited, clearly marked with [brackets], but may never be used to editorialize or comment on the content.


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, videos, blogs, press releases, or celebrity gossip will be allowed. All posts will be judged on a case-by-case basis. Mods may use discretion to pre-approve videos or press releases from highly credible sources that provide unique, newsworthy content not available or possible in another format.


7. No duplicate posts.


If an article has already been posted, it will be removed. Different articles reporting on the same subject are permitted. 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 or news aggregators.


All posts must link to original article sources. You may include archival links in the post description. News aggregators such as Yahoo, Google, Hacker News, etc. should be avoided in favor of the original source link. Newswire services such as AP, Reuters, or AFP, are frequently republished and may be shared from other credible sources.


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 2 years ago
MODERATORS