|
joether -> RE: Another shooting rampage. (1/3/2014 4:07:42 PM)
|
Have to chuckle at the presentation of this 'article'.
1 ) There is not a link from a credible source of news here. Typically the author of these posts never places a link. So a 30 second google.com search turned up the usual suspects: right wing, pro-gun, and anti-government and anti-facts groups. When only certain groups are pushing for something not in the main stream media coverage, it generally means people are pushing an agenda for the benefit of a very small percentage of the population. In this case, those that hate the government and feel firearms are some mystical items of protection.
2 ) That the story is the same printing on ALL the sites viewed from '1' above. Not one of them offering a different perspective or additional information to the original 'story' written. In other words, questioning the authority of what is written is wrong, but questioning what is wrong with authorities is right. Not one of these stories explains....WHY...the police drew guns and fired. Would that not be a good question? As typically they do not draw their arms unless the suspect was drawing a weapon of some type.
3 ) Here is one more example in which drawing and firing a weapon accurately is not a piece of cake. As medical science can explain, that when the human body experiences the 'fight or flight' response, blood draws out of the extremities (i.e. hands and feet) towards the central part of the body. This makes holding a firearm and accurately shooting it considerably harder. While most police will practice to over come such human conditions, it does still happen. For those that do not practice this stuff acting and drawing a firearm, the effects will be the same or worst. Which makes it ironically funny for right winters and anti-government types to bash on the police for this, when in effect, reduces their own credibility with firearms if caught in the same or similar situation. Its not funny that the events unfolded were really bad for bystanders.
4 ) "A mentally disturbed man is wandering through traffic...". What evidence does the author have to show the man in question was mentally disturbed? There is no video, photos, or independent eye witnesses to verify the person in question. I've known drunk and drugged out people to do some amazing dumb and unwise things. And most of those are not '...mentally disturbed....' individuals. So where is the hard evidence of this accusation?
5 ) You can tell this is not 'news' but rather 'propaganda' by the 4th 'paragraph': Ah, yes: the “situation” injured the innocent bystanders. If you outlaw guns, only situations will have guns. No serious journalist would write this crap, not even if they worked for FOX News! One more reason not to take this 'story' seriously.
6 ) Why was the suspect pursued by the police in the first place? This goes along with '4' above in that there would need to be....something....of a reason for police to pursue this person. Which crime was the suspect charged with exactly? Oh that' right, in the author's greed to push the propaganda he forgot about THE FACTS.
A person that will take this 'story' as 'legit', is best of placing all their money for investing purposes under their mattress. And then taking the financial hit years down the road like a man. A good investor that makes many times their initial investment years later typically examines not just the information, but the source(s) of that information. They check how valid the information and source is and even check up on the information from time to time depending on the length of the investment. Which is to say, someone with a healthy dose of wisdom would not accept this story 'as is' since it leaves a huge amount of information out. The purpose of a journalistic quality news article is to FULLY explain the 'who's', the 'why's', the 'how's', the 'when's', and the 'where's'. To the best of their knowledge without inputting political agendas with the work. That would be how a PROFESSIONAL journalist operates. This guy who wrote this piece is neither a professional nor a journalist.
|
|
|
|
