There are always some who say one side and some who say the other. The news are very prone to presenting controversy without regard for whether it's right.
What do you mean "whether it's right"?
Are you suggesting reporters should pre-judge issues and only report those that fit their own undoubtedly biased worldview? I think they should strive to be unbiased, and accurately report all sides of an issue their community is discussing.
I'm saying they should apply some basic fact-checking to what they report.
Do you seriously think a reporter will have all the facts and will have collated and condensed witness statements into brief, even-handed summations within 48 hours of an incident and before police have released body cam footage and/or cell phone videos from passers-by, or are you just bullshitting?
Stories are reported as the unfold. Evidence is reported as it's discovered or released. If you want all the facts before you comment, then don't comment on stories until you have seen (and remembered!) all the facts.
I think we have very different ideas about what might be controversial when it comes to police killing suspects especially when video evidence and witness statements indicate the dead guy was surrendering or posed no threat that would justify such extreme measures. People in the US are presumed innocent until found guilty in a court of law. Cops killing people we presume are innocent should be controversial unless we're all in agreement that it was wrong, and even then there's likely to be some controversy over whether the killing was a crime.
As I was saying, the reporting should fact-check. Many of the witnesses who said they saw him surrendering were not actually able to see what was happening, their testimony
had to be false.
Which witnesses are those, Loren? Name them. Provide links to their testimony and any evidence that supports your claim.
The only alleged witness we know about who said they saw something they could not have seen was
Sandra McElroy , and she testified that Brown was attacking Officer Wilson when he was killed. I think there are only two possibilities here:
1) you remember something about a witness not being able to see what they claimed to have seen but didn't remember it was someone defending Wilson's actions and didn't bother to look it up, or
2) you are bullshitting about many of the witnesses.
Yes, controversies drive sales for news outlets. Yes, there are some outlets that gin up controversies where none exist, or exaggerate them beyond recognition. That's the Fox News business model in a nutshell. But that is not every news outlet reporting on every issue.
That's
almost all news, not just Faux.
If you are dismissing discussions of justified vs. unjustified shootings merely because some news outlet reports it like it's a controversy, then you have no idea what's going on.
I'm saying that just because they reported it doesn't mean there's a real controversy.
Please explain what in your opinion makes something a 'real' controversy.
Something were the dispute can actually stand up to scrutiny--a sane analysis of what can be established does not settle the matter one way or the other. A bunch of people beating a contrary position doesn't make a controversy.
The dispute over Michael Brown's death being needless or necessary can stand up to scrutiny. In fact it has, more than once.
There is evidence Wilson felt it was necessary to shoot Brown while he, Wilson, was still sitting in his car. We know Brown ran away from car and can reasonably believe he would have kept on running if Wilson hadn't exited his car and yelled at Brown to stop. And we know Brown was not within striking distance of Wilson, or likely to get there anytime soon, as he put his hands up and out and started to kneel.
It's a genuine controversy, no matter how firmly your mind was made up when you heard an authority figure killed a black guy.
Same thing I was saying above--playing to controversy. "Shot for jaywalking" is a lot more newsworthy than "shot for trying to take the officer's gun." Or one I just saw today, "shot for shoplifting" when it was really "shot for driving at an officer."
I said he was stopped for jaywalking, which is an indisputable fact thoroughly attested to by witnesses including Officer Wilson.
Stopped for jaywalking, not shot for jaywalking. You're being very deceptive.
I said stopped for jaywalking. You must have misread my post. Please re-read it and retract your accusation.
But he wasn't shot for jaywalking. You said "Brown was stopped by Officer Wilson for jaywalking", implying that was the cause of him being shot.
If you haven't read the article Derec linked, please do so, then re-read what I posted.
And then retract your accusation.
The stop led to an argument, which led to some kind of physical contact, which led to Wilson trying to shoot Brown from inside his car, which led to Brown running away, which led to Wilson exiting his car and fatally shooting Brown from a distance while Brown's arms were out to the sides and some say up in the air.
Wilson's life was not in danger, and neither were the lives of anyone except Brown himself, hence the controversy over his death. Also, this took place in Ferguson, MO, a town funding it's police force through citations and tickets issued to mostly black citizens for very minor infractions like jaywalking or having a non functioning car in the driveway.
The way the police department in Ferguson operated was very much in keeping with the pattern of policing noted in the article Derec found.
Once again, deceptive.
1) "Some kind of physical contact"--sorry, we have Brown's DNA on Wilson's gun. Brown was trying to take Wilson's gun.
2) "Some say"--many of the "witnesses" for Brown could not actually have seen what they reported to see.
3) You're bringing up a bunch of irrelevant things.
1) We have as much evidence Brown was trying to shove the barrel of the gun away when Wilson first tried to kill him as we have that Brown was trying to take the gun. In fact, given that Wilson carried his weapon on his right hip and Brown couldn't have reached it from where he was standing unless and until Wilson pulled it out of his holster, we have slightly more evidence of the former than the latter.
There is
no situation where it would be reasonable for Brown to have touched the gun. Someone's pointing a gun at you, you do anything with the gun and you should expect to be shot. The only reason to shove the barrel away was to fight Wilson.
What the ever-loving-F are you talking about?
If someone is about to point a gun at you, you dodge, deflect, duck, or whatever it takes to defend yourself. You don't just stand there like a dumbass and think to yourself "Gee, this guy looks like he's going to kill me, I better not shove the barrel of the gun away or else he'll kill me".
2) Which ones? The only witness of record that I know of who could not have seen what they claimed to have seen was the woman who suffers from delusions who said Brown was attacking Wilson.
I haven't kept track. There were several who weren't in a position to see what they claimed to see.
Where is your evidence?
