Article Image
News Link • Law Enforcers or Peace Officers

Mother sues police for shooting unarmed 14-year-old son to death

• Rawstory

2 Comments in Response to

Comment by Anonymous
Entered on:


You may not trust this story … it is "slanted" …

David Jackson … your observation that this story is rigged or "one-sided" or "biased" comes from an eye that had studied journalism like I did. I will share something with you – and also for the information of the innocent reading public that’s being taken for a ride every time stories like this are flashed on the screen. I have been holding on to this for quite sometime … but now that you brought it up, it’s time to bring it out.

In the study of Journalism, you will know what is a "slant" or a "slanted" story. It is the "angle" of the story a reporter, an editorial writer or the publishing media only wanted to project to the readers, even if to "kill" the truth of the story becomes necessary to achieve that purpose.

In this story, the "angle" is to throw mud at the cops. It does not matter whether these are good or bad cops. For example, Larken Rose, the unschooled preacher of violence that has a good spot in this freedom website, summarized it in a sentence … that "only a dead cop is a good cop". This is the "angle" of the story.

In the background story of the peace officer that reportedly shot the 14-year old boy, the "angle" was written about this cop that acts like a loose cannon, bereft of discipline, etc. and has been reprimanded about 16 times, and yet with a smoking gun in his hand, still remained in the service. But did the story state why this cop was still in the service? No, not at all… that was "killed". Maybe his good quality as a cop outweighed his bad quality as the "angle" projects, who knows. But that has to be "killed".

Why would a cop shoot an unarmed 14-year-old boy? Does that make sense? Would that not be one of the main points of interest on the part of the reader to know? This omission cannot be found in any part of the story. Such a "kill" is preposterous to a schooled journalist like me.

And there is much more to this fraudulently reported story.

Take note of the fact that this story was originally reported by Raw, a radical progressive website that allegedly does investigative reporting and "angle" it to hate primarily the GOP, and ultimately the U.S. Government. It is picked up and reported by hate-cop and hate-Government reporting apples in the same rotten basketful of freedom websites reporting apples.

By the way, it is pertinent for you and the public to know that Newsweek described as "Muck, raked …" synonymous to mud-thrower at its kindest, and at its worst "dirt" or "sewage". These are not kind words for a website that claims a 1.6 million readership even if you are one of those predisposed to buy the London Bridge based on the sales story published on the Web.

The previous story Raw reported and picked up in this website was "Wisconsin Protesters Arrested For Filming Lawmakers". It should have been "Wisconsin Protesters Filming Lawmakers Were Arrested For Disrupting Proceedings". But Raw has an "angle". It did not report why protesters were arrested! They were "disruptive" of the lawmakers’ proceedings. The protesters violated the rule on order, viz: "recording, filming or photographing such a meeting in a manner that interferes with the conduct of the meeting or the rights of the participants …In the report, this is what was "killed". Reading the "slanted" story of the Raw like this would make the readers hate police officers or the Government that conducts arrests like a headless chicken or like an abominable mindless maniac. That was the "angle" achieved.

Having this knowledge of Journalism learned in school is both a blessing and a curse. You are happy that you can share your knowledge with others, but at the same time with this knowledge, you feel sad to know that people are taken for a ride to achieve a clandestine and selfish purpose. You see it here and other freedom websites that attract writers or reporters in pursuit of their agenda.


Comment by David Jackson
Entered on:

    Saying, "I told you so" obviously won't bring the young boy back. At any level, this is sickening!

     Believe it or not, I know at least one "educator" - PhD - who would say that this is a one-sided, biased report: it fails to mention all the times that police don't screw up or manage to do their job correctly...Do tell. I expect them to do their job correctly every damn time they hit the streets!

     Why isn't the county prosecutor bring the case to trial? Why isn't the State Attorney General bringing the case to trial? Why isn't the U.S. Attorney General bringing the case to trial? Where might one finf the "champions of the Constitution", who all themselves the ACLU?

    Welcome to YOUR world!  

Join us on our Social Networks:


Share this page with your friends on your favorite social network: