- Joined
- Jul 29, 2009
- Messages
- 34,478
- Reaction score
- 17,282
- Location
- Southwestern U.S.
- Gender
- Male
- Political Leaning
- Conservative
Check out this headline from the "news" section of the Chicago Sun Times, on their story about the shooting videos released yesterday by Charlotte police:
[h=1]"Charlotte video: Cops shot at black man 4 times as he backed up"[/h]
Come on folks... It doesn't get more distorted and blatantly one sided than that. LMAO
:doh
.
Oh...you mean they told the truth? Because on the dash cam video, that's exactly what it looked like happened. :doh
Check out this headline from the "news" section of the Chicago Sun Times, on their story about the shooting videos released yesterday by Charlotte police:
[h=1]"Charlotte video: Cops shot at black man 4 times as he backed up"[/h]
Come on folks... It doesn't get more distorted and blatantly one sided than that. LMAO
:doh
.
LMAO... I suppose in your world there's nothing about that headline that is in any way one-sided, deceptive, or untrue.
You're a hoot.... Moot.
.
Check out this headline from the "news" section of the Chicago Sun Times, on their story about the shooting videos released yesterday by Charlotte police:
[h=1]"Charlotte video: Cops shot at black man 4 times as he backed up"[/h]
Come on folks... It doesn't get more distorted and blatantly one sided than that. LMAO
:doh
.
I have to admit...I'm having a real hoot watching you dig your own hole, Grim. :lamo
https://www.washingtonpost.com/news...of-keith-lamont-scott/?utm_term=.e1a80aed35ed
So what did the headline get wrong?
It is hard to say, but the man did not make the appearance of trying to shoot anyone or even escape. What we need is the headcam of the officer that shot.
Perhaps thats because none of the four or five videos show him with a gun in his hand. Not one.That headline implies that an unarmed man, backing away from and in full compliance with police, was shot and killed by a group of officers because he was black.
In order to do that, you'd have to forget that it was two plain clothes cops in an unmarked vehicle. How would Scott know they were cops and not two supremacists trying to rob or kill him? Scott didn't get out of his car until uniformed officers showed up in a marked police car.Forget about the fact that he wouldn't get out of his vehicle when police first asked him to, and when he finally did (after police attempted to break the passenger side window), was holding a gun in his hand and refused more than a dozen orders by police to "drop the gun". Him being black had nothing to do with this shooting, but that didn't stop the Sun Times for implying it did.
Just because you're a conservative, doesn't mean you get your own set of facts, either.The fact you don't see it is par for the course...
"Cops" didn't shoot the man, it was one officer who shot him and that officer also happened to be black, completely discrediting the implication that the shooting was racially motivated.
Just because you are a liberal, doesn't mean you have to abandon all common sense.
I'm not debating the incident itself. There are plenty of threads for that.
This post is about the obviously biased, one-sided headline the chicago Sun Times used for their story about the release of those videos. That headline is something I would expect to see on the Daily Kos, DU, the Huffington Post, or some far left blog, but not in the news section of a main stream newspaper like the Chicago Sun Times. Doesn't Chicago have enough gun violence problems without fanning the flames with distorted **** like this?
.
These things are always handled with biased bigotry lately.
That headline implies that an unarmed man, backing away from and in full compliance with police, was shot and killed by a group of officers because he was black.
Forget about the fact that he wouldn't get out of his vehicle when police first asked him to, and when he finally did (after police attempted to break the passenger side window), was holding a gun in his hand and refused more than a dozen orders by police to "drop the gun". Him being black had nothing to do with this shooting, but that didn't stop the Sun Times for implying it did.
The fact you don't see it is par for the course...
"Cops" didn't shoot the man, it was one officer who shot him and that officer also happened to be black, completely discrediting the implication that the shooting was racially motivated.
Just because you are a liberal, doesn't mean you have to abandon all common sense.
Check out this headline from the "news" section of the Chicago Sun Times, on their story about the shooting videos released yesterday by Charlotte police:
[h=1]"Charlotte video: Cops shot at black man 4 times as he backed up"[/h]
Come on folks... It doesn't get more distorted and blatantly one sided than that. LMAO
:doh
.
I have to admit...I'm having a real hoot watching you dig your own hole, Grim. :lamo
https://www.washingtonpost.com/news...of-keith-lamont-scott/?utm_term=.e1a80aed35ed
So what did the headline get wrong?
HAHAHAHA Moot 1, Grim 0
The headline is accurate as written. There's nothing untrue about it. The job of every reader is to have questions and not go by headlines only which is just a small descriptor. Any questions should be in the article and any assumptions on top of the article headline are just that, personal assumptions. There's nothing dishonest about the headline at all.
I disagree. That's one of the requirements.
The headline does what it is intended to do and that is inflame the black community!
The media acts like the videos from the police dept has to be in HD and show the suspect
shooting at the officers while they dodge each shot. Then they think the police should shoot
the gun out of his hand with no one hurt. TV fantasy stuff not real world.
There are times when the police make mistakes but this shooting is not one of them.
Why were the police yelling about 10 times to drop the gun? The officer that shot the suspect
was black.
Yes really, thats just how facts work.Really?.
What? I agree with the fact and moot that the Headline is accurate. Anything you are choosing to make up or deflect to is on you. The headline is accurate and he proved it. You claimed the headline is dishonest but yet you can't prove it. You failed, he won.So let me see here... You agree with Moot that the cop who shot the man was not black, but the white officer in red?
Once again your inventions don't concern me. I repeat "I agree with the fact and moot that the Headline is accurate. Anything you are choosing to make up or deflect to is on you. The headline is accurate and he proved it. You claimed the headline is dishonest but yet you can't prove it. You failed, he won."You also agree that the man might have mistaken cops with bullet proof vests clearly marked with "Police" on them, as white supremacists out to kill a black man?
It's 100% accurate since its based on what I said and not your fantasies. I repeat" I agree with the fact and moot that the Headline is accurate. Anything you are choosing to make up or deflect to is on you. The headline is accurate and he proved it. You claimed the headline is dishonest but yet you can't prove it. You failed, he won.Your score keeping is as nuts as Moot's delusions are.
I repeat" I agree with the fact and moot that the Headline is accurate. Anything you are choosing to make up or deflect to is on you. The headline is accurate and he proved it. You claimed the headline is dishonest but yet you can't prove it. You failed, he won.So you believe that "cops", aka, multiple police officers shot the man as the headline states, and that is wasn't just one police officer who shot him?
The headline doesn;t do that in anyway, your assumptions on top the headlines does that, not the actual headlines. You also have no clue what my ideological beliefs are, but you are proving my point. You are assuming things and Deming them as true, that's your issue and mistake to deal with. Your assumptions are wrong and moot proved that.That headline clearly gives readers a false and misleading impression of what took place, but since it agrees with your ideological beliefs, you also choose to defend it like Moot.
See now this is nothing more than a personal attack and its because you have no ability to honest and unbiased support your claims about the headline which have been proved wrong by multiple posters now.I'm just glad that politics don't distort my reality and take away my cognitive reasoning like it apparently does for you two.
Even if the cops waited until after the suspect shot the usual suspects would just say he wasn't a threat any more because he had less ammo.
I repeat" I agree with the fact and moot that the Headline is accurate.
WOW... Maybe English wasn't your best subject in school, so let me clear things up for you.
The word "cops" is plural for "cop", which indicates more than one.
The headline states "cops shot at black man..." when the fact is that only one (black) "cop" shot the suspect.
Accurate indeed... LMAO
Check out this headline from the "news" section of the Chicago Sun Times, on their story about the shooting videos released yesterday by Charlotte police:
[h=1]"Charlotte video: Cops shot at black man 4 times as he backed up"[/h]
Come on folks... It doesn't get more distorted and blatantly one sided than that. LMAO
:doh
.
That headline implies that an unarmed man, backing away from and in full compliance with police, was shot and killed by a group of officers because he was black.
Forget about the fact that he wouldn't get out of his vehicle when police first asked him to, and when he finally did (after police attempted to break the passenger side window), was holding a gun in his hand and refused more than a dozen orders by police to "drop the gun". Him being black had nothing to do with this shooting, but that didn't stop the Sun Times for implying it did.
The fact you don't see it is par for the course...
"Cops" didn't shoot the man, it was one officer who shot him and that officer also happened to be black, completely discrediting the implication that the shooting was racially motivated.
Just because you are a liberal, doesn't mean you have to abandon all common sense.
So the ONLY dishonesty is you claiming the headline is biased and dishonest because it' not, this is also supported by the fact you have nothing to support your biased and dishonest claim and you completely backed off and ran from your other lies you tried to sell us. The headline is accurate and you have nothign to support otherwise, you lost moot and facts won.
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?