I understand where you are coming from, but it is not funny when a reporter does not give the WHOLE STORY. We saw lots of this crap during our recent election. We see it in publications that are sold at our supermarket checkout counters. The initial story has you to believe that the police were brutalizing this man in front of a bunch of poor & scared kids. And doing it w/out reason. Then later on another article tells much-much more and paints a much different picture. And don't think the original reporter didn't do it on purpose. It is called mis-information. Some publications like to say "inside sources have said"... that is all they need to justify their version.Originally Posted by zombie-a-go-go
I Googled this up. Who do you think is showing the story that was first posted here (the whole 3 paragraph story w/ a scary picture of a cop ready to zap)? Anti-government and anti-police sites. Reputable news sources give the story that was later posted in this thread.
It is not sad to dispute the accuracy of a story. It is sad to publicize a story that seems to be far from factual or tell the whole story. And yes, it is sad that this jerk put kids in danger of being hurt by his criminal actions. I hear that prison salad is paid with tax-payer money... that is the solution! Let him eat free salad!