Gun control advocates in Ferguson MO

[oldngray]

An eyewitness to the shooting of Mike Brown in Ferguson told the grand jury this week that Brown did not have his hands up when he was shot dead by Officer Darren Wilson. The eyewitness watched the shooting from near the Canfield Green apartments.

http://www.thegatewaypundit.com/201...nds-were-not-up-when-shot-handsdowndontshoot/

 

[bbsam]

People really quote the Gateway Pundit as if he's a credible journalist?

 

[moreluck]

People really quote the Gateway Pundit as if he's a credible journalist?

When someone doesn't have something to counter, they attack the source. Don't read the words, just attack where the words came from. Typical M.O.

 

[oldngray]

People really quote the Gateway Pundit as if he's a credible journalist?

It linked to this source if your want more confirmation
http://www.stltoday.com/news/local/...al&utm_source=twitter.com&utm_campaign=buffer

 

[realbrown1]

It linked to this source if your want more confirmation
http://www.stltoday.com/news/local/...al&utm_source=twitter.com&utm_campaign=buffer

Now they will attack the St. Louis Today.
They just don't want to hear the truth.
Mike Brown was a thug. The officer gave him every chance to give up.
Mike Brown attacked the officer and tried to take his gun.
And Mike Brown bum rushed the officer.
That is the truth the TROLLS refuse to believe.

 

[bbsam]

When someone doesn't have something to counter, they attack the source. Don't read the words, just attack where the words came from. Typical M.O.

Really? And you accept PBS, NPR, and foreign news outlets? Since when?

 

[bbsam]

It linked to this source if your want more confirmation
http://www.stltoday.com/news/local/...al&utm_source=twitter.com&utm_campaign=buffer

Better.

 

[bbsam]

You can see the difference in the two accounts, can't you?

 

[oldngray]

You can see the difference in the two accounts, can't you?

The facts remain the same. Nothing stated in the first was untrue.

 

[bbsam]

The facts remain the same. Nothing stated in the first was untrue.

A lot was omitted.

 

[oldngray]

A lot was omitted.

Yet you still have nothing to dispute the truth of what was said.

 

[moreluck]

Really? And you accept PBS, NPR, and foreign news outlets? Since when?

Not blindly. I read, I process and then I decide for myself.

 

[bbsam]

Yet you still have nothing to dispute the truth of what was said.

Half a truth is a lie as well.

 

[bbsam]

Not blindly. I read, I process and then I decide for myself.

And you decide that weasel zippersand wnd are credible...which kills your credibility.

 

[oldngray]

Half a truth is a lie as well.

Which other details did you want to see? It is never necessary to quote a source document in its entirety and the portions dealing with details of why witnesses see different things weren't relevant. Eyewitnesses are always the least reliable source. What is most important is the physical evidence. So far nothing has disproved Wilson's account of events, just suggested alternate possibilities. The burden is to prove the events occurred differently, bot suggest "its possible that this could have happened". Much of the evidence still hasn't been released to the public so people need to wait and let the investigation continue. Not riot in the streets because you are afraid you won't get the outcome you desire.

 

[bbsam]

The fact that there are differing accounts by many eyewitnesses. The Gateway Pundit seemed to give far more credence to the one while the St. Louis report had more to say. If all eyewitness reports are weighted evenly, and there one varies greatly from the others, all you really have is an outlier and probably diminished in its plausibility but to the Gateway Pundit, this one account or the few that support his view are triumphed as the real truth. That's not credible journalism.

 

[oldngray]

The fact that there are differing accounts by many eyewitnesses. The Gateway Pundit seemed to give far more credence to the one while the St. Louis report had more to say. If all eyewitness reports are weighted evenly, and there one varies greatly from the others, all you really have is an outlier and probably diminished in its plausibility but to the Gateway Pundit, this one account or the few that support his view are triumphed as the real truth. That's not credible journalism.

Who is to say what witness is more reliable and who would be an outlier? Just another example of why you should not dismiss a source as you do just because you don't agree with its conservative slant. Is it better to rely solely on a liberal source which only reports the opposite?

 

[bbsam]

Who is to say what witness is more reliable and who would be an outlier? Just another example of why you should not dismiss a source as you do just because you don't agree with its conservative slant. Is it better to rely solely on a liberal source which only reports the opposite?

Why use the conservative slant when a more neutral account is available?

 

[bbsam]

Who is to say what witness is more reliable and who would be an outlier? Just another example of why you should not dismiss a source as you do just because you don't agree with its conservative slant. Is it better to rely solely on a liberal source which only reports the opposite?

By definition, the outlier would be the witness that saw things starkly different than the vast majority.

 

[oldngray]

Why use the conservative slant when a more neutral account is available?

What would you define as neutral? Something with a more liberal bias is not necessarily neutral.

 

[oldngray]

By definition, the outlier would be the witness that saw things starkly different than the vast majority.

You are making assumptions. The public doesn't know how many witnesses saw what yet. The ones who have been running to the media may be the outliers.