I wonder what motivates you to ‘dissect’ this video as an apologist for the cops?
Charles Scott Meece
1

The motivation is simple: TRUTH. I detest lies. I detest manipulation of facts to suit agenda. There are plenty of examples of police abusing their power and authority, there is no need to deceive people and fabricate another example in a situation where the police conducted themselves professionally.

It’s not about being an apologist for any side. It’s about being an advocate for the TRUTH, plain and simple.

If you were concerned for the truth, you would point out the errors in my response to the video. Instead, like most well-intentioned but mistaken activists, you believe that focusing on personal attacks magically turns falsehoods into truth…that…or truth doesn’t matter and instead just attacking people (such as police officers, people of a certain color, or those who focus on facts instead of exaggeration and deceit) is what is most important. I disagree of course…and believe emotions and deceit have no place for honest, objective reporting of facts.

As far as bias…where is it? Am I guilty of it by virtue of being white? That is what the ill-educated and/or racists would have us believe. But again, that’s nonsense. Facts are nasty things…they exist independent of one’s preferences of them. If I made an error in my response to the video, kindly point it out. I’ll amend it accordingly.

Yes, the law is not necessarily applied equally. No one has argued otherwise. What was argued was that the reporting of this event was false, biased, not objective, etc. What was argued was that in this particlar instance, the law was applied in a fair way. Simply saying it wasn’t without addressing the details is just saying “Nuh-uh.” That may work in grade school, but not in the realm of proper reasoning and maturity.

One clap, two clap, three clap, forty?

By clapping more or less, you can signal to us which stories really stand out.