No, I understand that. She was also a non-native English speaker, who was still learning English.
The first part of my original comment was specifically addressing someone else's comment who was incorrectly comparing apples to cantaloupes.
I said nothing to do about what the cops felt, or even their actions, which I addressed in the second half, but no one has responded to that so it was dropped.
I was simply stating that those are not apt comparisons because of the statistically significant physical differences between those two groups of people.
There's a reason why Pacific islanders, specifically Samoans, are 40 times more likely to be in the NFL than any other group.
None of that justifies the police killing her, but it also invalidates the original comparison, which was all I was critiquing.
No, I don't. There aren't a lot of high density Samoan enclaves around the US relative to other minority groups, and I grew up alongside one of the largest.
I realize it controversial for Lemmy's white liberal sensibilities to point out different groups of people can have different characteristics, but that doesn't make it any less true, no matter how many people down vote what I'm saying.
I also never said any of this justified the police killing her.
No, it's not an assumption. Because if you had, you would know that what I said was completely accurate.
What....? Seriously? Considering I grew up with a lot of samoans, I think it's you who's mistaken.
It's not assumptions, there's photos online...
Also, that's something that only someone who's never been in a Samoan community would ever say.
That's not the slam dunk you think it is, as she was samoan. So she would probably anywhere between 2 and 3 times the size of the average white/Hispanic/black girls her age.
What I find more curious is that two officer shot, but one was using less than lethal rounds. I don't understand why they wouldn't either both have them, or why those wouldn't be used first sans the real bullets.
I'm going to need you to actually quote which part of my comment you're responding to.
As far as I can tell, what you wrote has exactly nothing to do with anything that I said.
At no point did I mention laws, or legal loopholes.
And I certainly never mentioned anything about the United States, or the legal liability of Twitter, except as in response to your comment.
I think you're confusing my acknowledgment of the daily reality of a country that is currently divided between 3 and 5 major and minor factions, all in various states of civil conflict, with being something else entirely.
I wasn't providing any opinion, or analysis, on the legality from Twitter's perspective. I certainly wasn't making any comparisons to laws in the United States and Yemen, or anything else that you've been talking about since your first comment.
I would make the "duh no shit this is clickbait" observation if the BBC ran yet another story about how kids are selling drugs on Snapchat or Instagram.
You mean the first three paragraphs describing a few ads on Twitter for weapons?
Followed by the BBC, quoting other British "NGO" organizations, trying to rally people to support additional actions against a group that Britain currently engaged in military actions against? Yes, I read that as well.
The article reads like two separate articles pasted together by a moron. The only connective tissue between the Twitter ads, and the Houthis, was that the weapons traders lived an area controlled by them. News flash, the Houthis control a majority of the country.
So again, in a country that has had an active civil war since 2014, it's not surprising that people are selling weapons anywhere and everywhere, online, and off.
@circuscritic
@lemmy.ca