Weird how you can say something baseless and it's fine but if I make hyperbole about how a jury treated the murderer I eat a ban
The last bastion of uncontested colossal yet grunt-based organized criminal activity in the United States
Certain people are caught on camera murdering people already and get away with it. Doubt the shooter cared about video, phone details, etc.
One could as easily argue the opposite, if this was some kind of calculated revenge action, the perpetrator would be best served by waiting a while until the trial was out of everyone's minds. And conversely, if it was committed by somebody acting out of blind rage, it seems most likely such a person would have acted before the trial.
Growing up in the hood you hear about revenge killings by the police all the time. It's not conspiracy theorist mumbo jumbo, it's reality.
This argument would, again, basically militate in favour of it happening before the trial.
How could someone react to the sentencing of a cop to a murder charge before the trial? Sure, no one can say matter of factly that this is connected, but Occam's razor is only giving one obvious option: someone shot the person who testified against the cop who was just convicted of murder for shooting an innocent black man.
He wouldnt have to think to act since cops don't get sentenced often in this country. If the cop had gotten off, that would have been a message. If not, this also serves as one.
Hyperbole? Your post was vile sexist shit
As with many applications of Occam's razor, a lot depends on how you frame it (which is why it's not the clean reasoning tool it's often imagined to be). In particular, you begin by defining the victim solely in relation to the Guyger trial and therefore Occam's razor suggests it's connected to that, but the Guyger trial was only one small part of this guy's life, and his death could have been connected to any part of it (or none, frankly; he might just have been in the wrong place at the wrong time, though I would say that that bare description we get of the circumstances of his death weigh against that explanation).
This guy didn't hug anything. Botham's brother and the judge did.
Yeah, the international news of the trial that led to the conviction of a cop for killing a black person, in which the man publicly testified, is not the most defining attribute of this man's life, so it's a clear folly to make such a connection. Just Google his name, and you'll see a whole litany of other things this man has done, many equally capable of inciting violence.
That's a poor way to conduct an investigation. You can't just assume it was retaliation and go from there. That's just a potential motive, and if you go down the route of potential motives then you are going to be going down a lot of routes for no reason other than some Sherlock hunch.
Well you'd have to assume each reasoning has the same weight , in addition to disregarding timing as well to assume that Occam's razor could be applied to any sort of reason.
The ones thinking that it could be pigs or white supremacists involved?
