608
How is this not assault with a deadly weapon? She's there working, clearly not a threat.
That cop should be prosecuted.
this post was submitted on 09 Jun 2025
608 points (99.8% liked)
World News
36389 readers
1178 users here now
News from around the world!
Rules:
-
Please only post links to actual news sources, no tabloid sites, etc
-
No NSFW content
-
No hate speech, bigotry, propaganda, etc
founded 5 years ago
MODERATORS
It is. But do you see any other cops moving to arrest the shooter? This is why people say ACAB. Sure, some of them probably really do want to make positive change, but they don't actually take the actions against other officers required to allow for that change. They instead fall in line, which makes them just another part of the problem. Law enforcement finds it more important to show a united front, even if that front is squarely against the people, and even the law itself.
Cops merely protect the ones giving orders rather than the people, so it's not a big surprise. This is why anarchists believe that they should be abolished.
Don't worry. They will conduct an internal review, which will identify the officer at fault and punish him by having him go on paid vacation.
Qualified immunity; because there is no explicit guidance against police “shooting blonde, female Australian news reporters live on the air while covering an LA protests against ICE on a weekend” - he will be let off with a stern talking to, and a wink.
"Immunity" being the immunity of the sovereign. I do not understand how we can embrace this concept as a country 250 years after breaking free of monarchy.
As a non-American, I find that whole concept absurd - and that’s before learning of its ties to monarchy!
Yes, and I'm not being hyperbolic. If you read early American caselaw explaining the rationale of sovereign immunity, the logic is that in monarchies it drives from the divine right of the sovereign. When we became independent we kept that legal concept, but the judges said that it derived from the will of the electorate rather than the divine right of the sovereign. Of course, the functional outcome was the same....
Um actually is a "less deadly" weapon so it's perfectly fine to shoot at whoever you feel like!
So we can shoot back at cops if they're rubber bullets, paintballs, or some other "less lethal" ammo?
No, that would be assault with a deadly weapon. Everything is deadly in the hands of anyone who's not a cop, remember.
he saw something on the other side of her and he only hit her because of poor aim - most likely results of investigation if that even happens
So that's reckless endangerment with a deadly weapon and incompetence instead.
The shooter should still be prosecuted.
Should but our police force is amazing at finding ways to make obvious assault and wrong doing as vital to their jobs.
Australia is hamas
they're using blonde reporters as human shields !!!
The reporter isn't the only one who has gotten shot for non-violent protesting / reporting. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KlxSsceOOX4&t=149s in the video, they emphasize that "officers taking aim with weapons, shooting rubber bullets indiscriminately at anyone in their path" (1:56)
It's clearly on purpose too. The camera pans to look at the (masked) cops and one deliberately shoots at them. Fuck the Orange Jackass, Stephen Miller, and everyone else involved in this mess. The soldiers should have refused the orders and arrested the criminal bastards.
someone should bring democracy to this god-forgotten country.
Reminder that a rubber bullet is mainly metal with a thin layer of rubber around it...
It’s so sad to see what’s happening to this country. So sad.
I can't be sure, but it almost looks like the cop who shot her bent over laughing after. Watch them closely, the smoke nearly hides it. They take a split second like, "Should I do it?" then haul up and fire. Then it looks like, "Aw, I only shot her in the leg as a joke." Innocent prank, I'm sure... cunts.
Clearly she was holding an unknown blue-ish weapon of sorts and was prepared to mask her face.