- Joined
- Apr 22, 2012
- Messages
- 1,692
- Reaction score
- 1,454
- Location
- Dunedin, Florida
- Gender
- Male
- Political Leaning
- Slightly Conservative
Perhaps thats because none of the four or five videos show him with a gun in his hand. Not one.
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.
Just because you're a conservative, doesn't mean you get your own set of facts, either.
If you look at the dash cam video you can see who shot him....and it wasn't the black officer. In the video, after getting out of his car, Scott was slowly backing up into the sunlight by the white truck that the cop in the red shirt and a uniformed officer were using for cover. As Scott moved past the truck, he was taking away their cover.....and that's when the cop in the red shirt shot him. Still...there's no visual evidence in any of the videos that Scott had a gun in his hand....so the headline had it exactly right.
It wasn't the cop in red that shot him, if you look closely at where his gun is pointed when the shots are fired and notice no recoil or smoke from his gun.
Also this
Brentley Vinson: What we know about the Charlotte police officer - CNN.com
yes, i think you're right...it wasn't the red shirt cop....
http://www.debatepolitics.com/bias-...shonest-headline-w-43-a-4.html#post1066353674
HAHAHAHA That's what I thought, you want to start over but wont be honest and actually do it. My own "beliefs", like yours are meaningless to facts, you thinking they matter shows your problem though. Fact remains your op failed, you were proven wrong and moot was right. The headline is not dishonest. When you can admit that let us know, then we can talk about anything you want, if you can't be honest then no we can't.
In the wife's video..we can hear her telling the cops that he doesn't have a gun and "don't do it"....and then..."did you shoot him, did you shoot him?"MAN REPEATEDLY TOLD BY COPS TO DROP WEAPON - WIFE SHOUTS "DON'T DO IT" - MAN SHOT BY COP
Is it all true?
Any bias in that headline?
In the wife's video..we can hear her telling the cops that he doesn't have a gun and "don't do it"....and then..."did you shoot him, did you shoot him?"
But none of the videos show Scott holding a gun....but we can see him backing up as he gets shot four times. If we all have to go by are the videos then both headlines are true, imo.
Can you please answer the following question, so myself and everyone else understands what your interpretation of "honest" is:
Is the use of selective truths in a story's headline, which could easily lead people into embracing a false, distorted or incomplete conclusion, what you would deem to be an honest headline?
A discussion about the headline can't take place, if you won't disclose what you deem to be honest and dishonest.
.
Quite true. Especially when . . . .
and
Charlotte Police Say Gun Found at Scene Had the Deceased Man’s Fingerprints and DNA
Now why would cops order someone to put down the gun, if they didn't see he had one in his hand? It kinda logically follows that they saw it in his hand, and then told him to put it down, doesn't it?
It certainly does to me, especially when you take into account this took place in broad daylight and police officers were all in very close proximety with unobstructed views of the suspect.
.
Yes, I think you're right...it wasn't the red shirt cop....
http://www.debatepolitics.com/bias-...shonest-headline-w-43-a-4.html#post1066353674
Everything I have seen identifies Brentley Vinson as the officer who opened fire.
Officer Brentley Vinson: 5 Fast Facts You Need to Know | Heavy.com
http://www.nytimes.com/2016/09/26/u...ails-of-the-police-shooting-in-charlotte.html
Yeah, I just saw a still from the body cam video with what appears to be Brently Vinson with a clear view of Scott the instant he is shot. Still couldn't see a gun in Scott's hand, though.
see :50 on video...if you don't see it try the youtube page. It shows a single frame of Scott looking straight at the body cam officer and a man standing off to the side between the front of the white SUV and dark SUV and pointing a gun.
'Is that better, there is nothing in that headline that assumes that he was unarmed or armed, that's an assumption that you made.
Try this on for size... California: "Cop shoots black man 4 times as he backed up"
Does that give any indication of anything besides a black man being shot four times? My only assumption from it, is that he was probably shot in the back, how bout you?
If you want to get technical, like you do here, how many COPS shot this man?
You are the only one confused and there is no interpretation of honest it has a very clear , I can't change its definition nor can you that's why your OP completely fails.Can you please answer the following question, so myself and everyone else understands what your interpretation of "honest" is:
Is the use of selective truths in a story's headline, which could easily lead people into embracing a false, distorted or incomplete conclusion, what you would deem to be an honest headline?
A discussion about the headline can't take place, if you won't disclose what you deem to be honest and dishonest.
.
I don't have a criteria, the dictionary does though.Okay ... how about this headline ... pass honesty muster with your criteria?
MAN REPEATEDLY TOLD BY COPS TO DROP WEAPON - WIFE SHOUTS "DON'T DO IT" - MAN SHOT BY COP
This was already answered repeatedly by multiple posters. You or anybody else "inventing false, distorted or incomplete conclusions" is your own fault it doesn't impact the the honesty of the headline which has already been proven.
You have already been told posting lies will not work I have answered your question multiple times :lol:I didn't ask multiple posters the question, I asked YOU the question... And once again, you have avoided answering it..
Repeating your lie also wont work, again I have answered you multiple times.Why is it you have such a stern, unwavering opinion about the headline and myself, but you can't answer a question that is directly related to a response that you yourself you gave?.
Go for it each time you do and each time I answer your post looks more and more moronic hahaLet's see if the 4th time is a charm:
I'll repeat my answer that complete owns your question again, you know the part of the post you conveniently didn't quote which is VERY tellingIs the use of selective truths in a story's headline, which could easily lead people into embracing a false, distorted or incomplete conclusion, what you would deem to be an honest headline?
.
Your post was wrong, Moot was right and you can't even qoute which part of the headline is dishonest and prove it. Fact remains nothing in the headline is dishonest. Anything else? :lamoThis was already answered repeatedly by multiple posters. You or anybody else "inventing false, distorted or incomplete conclusions" is your own fault it doesn't impact the the honesty of the headline which has already been proven.
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'll repeat my answer that complete owns your question again, you know the part of the post you conveniently didn't quote which is VERY telling
I have been giving this some thought. I don't think it is bias as much as it is inflammatory. That is how news agencies sell their wares, drama.
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?