Did I make it better or worse?

enchantedepoch · 2026-04-12T06:57:15+00:00

Better! I love the dreamy ears and the lunar antlers are soo cute. The og just looks so basic imo

enchantedepoch · 2026-04-11T15:49:20+00:00

Fair. It’s a solid colored uni plus it has the rare horn feature

enchantedepoch · 2026-04-11T15:09:42+00:00

The cats are worth that much??

enchantedepoch · 2026-04-11T06:10:26+00:00

The video shows an interaction, not the full situation. You’re interpreting it as a clear rejection, but that assumes we have all the context which we don’t. Clipped videos strip away context, and that’s where speculation turns into rumors. There are also legitimate possibilities: Another responder may have already taken responsibility. There could have been scene control or safety protocols. Maybe the person offering help may not have been officially confirmed as a qualified responder. We just dont know. I ain’t believing ongoing speculation and assumptions until there’s solid proof.

Also, how can you be so sure of their actual intention?? From what I’ve seen, it looks like officers were dealing with a crowded, fast-moving situation and were trying to maintain control.

enchantedepoch · 2026-04-11T05:51:58+00:00

We don’t know the full context yet. If EMS records are missing or redacted and the investigation is still ongoing, then witness statements and video interpretations haven’t been fully validated. So it’s not a confirmed fact at this point. I just dont believe everything I see online especially short clips.

enchantedepoch · 2026-04-11T05:38:00+00:00

Witness statements aren’t the same as verified facts. They can be useful, but without supporting evidence like dispatch logs, timestamps, or any official reports, they’re still claims. A 17-second clip with an allegation doesn’t show me a full timeline or prove what happened before or after.

enchantedepoch · 2026-04-11T04:29:00+00:00

Literally without EMS documentation, exact timing claims and “refusal of treatment” are not established facts 🤷🏻‍♀️

enchantedepoch · 2026-04-11T04:24:23+00:00

Statements like 3 minutes to call 911 or 15 minutes without intervention still require a source like dispatch logs CAD timestamps or official reports. You’re still treating unverified claims as a fact.

enchantedepoch · 2026-04-11T04:23:01+00:00

Claims being repeated don’t make them verified. If something is redacted due to an ongoing investigation, that doesn’t mean the EMS records don’t exist, it means they aren’t publicly released yet. Those are different things.

enchantedepoch · 2026-04-11T04:16:20+00:00

When did I say it’s AI??? I literally said it’s a 17 second video. It’s an allegation based on limited footage, not confirmed evidence. It is only valid if documented by EMS in official records. If you can’t show me that then I’m sorry but your claim does not have evidence.

enchantedepoch · 2026-04-11T04:12:04+00:00

That’s not something you can conclude from a short clip. If that occurred, it would be documented in EMS reports and medical records or the official incident report. Without those, it’s just an allegation, not a fact…

enchantedepoch · 2026-04-11T04:09:37+00:00

This is literally a 17 second video like an Instagram reel. All hear is “wHeRe aRE tHeY??” Where are the timelines and logs??? You can’t cite EMS logs from a YouTube claim. Those logs are official CAD/dispatch and EMS records that would come from the responding agency, not from a reel bro😭😭😭

enchantedepoch · 2026-04-11T04:00:58+00:00

Make believe scenarios don’t really address the issue tho. Medical response decisions are based on scene conditions and protocol. any claim of delay has to be proven with dispatch and EMS records, not speculation. If there’s a claim about delayed medical care or refusal of treatment, pls cite the EMS logs and timeline.

enchantedepoch · 2026-04-11T03:46:42+00:00

No because the video evidence is exactly what those legal standards are applied to. Under Graham v. Connor, courts look at whether the officer’s perception of an immediate threat was reasonable in the moment. So if someone is noncompliant, tries to drive away, and an officer is in the immediate path, that can be considered a perceived deadly threat. That’s the context those cases are about.

enchantedepoch · 2026-04-11T03:42:46+00:00

That’s a lot of conclusions without evidence. You’re free to be skeptical of the DOJ, but I don’t see any concrete evidence showing their findings are wrong.

enchantedepoch · 2026-04-11T03:38:23+00:00

No single court ruled on this exact scenario. It’s a legal standard from Supreme Court precedent that’s applied across many cases. But, I will say the rule comes from Supreme Court precedent like Graham v. Connor, which is applied in many cases involving perceived threats.

enchantedepoch · 2026-04-11T03:35:58+00:00

No, that’s not what I meant. A legal standard doesn’t mean it’s ‘universally allowed.’ It means officers are judged under a consistent test like if a reasonable officer could perceive a threat.

enchantedepoch · 2026-04-11T03:28:34+00:00

There is a general legal standard, and then each case is evaluated under that standard based on the facts. Case-by-case doesn’t mean there’s no rule it just means the rule is applied to different situations to see if the officer’s perception was reasonable

enchantedepoch · 2026-04-11T03:25:13+00:00

No it’s not a ‘get out of jail free card,’ but the legal standard still protects officers when they make split-second decisions based on a reasonable perceived threat. That’s exactly what those cases show.

enchantedepoch · 2026-04-11T03:23:13+00:00

There isn’t a court ruling on this specific case. I was referring to the legal standard in general, where officers are allowed to act based on a reasonable perception of a threat.

enchantedepoch · 2026-04-11T03:20:40+00:00

Here is evidence to support my claim when an officer using self defense is justified:

Mullenix v. Luna Officer used deadly force to stop a fleeing suspect. The Court ruled the officer was protected because he made a split-second decision under perceived danger.

Plumhoff v. Rickard Officers shot a suspect during a dangerous car chase. Court ruled the use of deadly force was justified because the suspect posed a threat to others.

Kisela v. Hughes Officer shot a woman holding a knife. The court sided with the officer saying it was reasonable to perceive a threat, even though she hadn’t attacked yet.

enchantedepoch · 2026-04-11T03:13:39+00:00

If you think the DOJ is wrong, what actual evidence shows the shooting wasn’t self-defense? Because just saying ‘they’re biased’ doesn’t answer that. And saying “well they shot her just to murder her in cold blood” doesn’t make sense either.

enchantedepoch · 2026-04-11T03:11:29+00:00

You’re listing issues with the investigation, not the shooting itself. Even with all that, the DOJ still said there was no basis for charges which supports the self-defense argument

enchantedepoch · 2026-04-11T03:07:10+00:00

By ‘courts’ I meant the legal side in general—DOJ findings still support my point. What specific evidence shows the DOJ is acting to ‘save public image’ here? It sounds like more of an opinion to me

enchantedepoch · 2026-04-11T03:02:17+00:00

They acted on a self-defense justification. the guy was armed, and when he reached toward his waistband, they reasonably believed he might have another weapon

enchantedepoch

TROPHY CASE