The difference a day makes
I caught this story yesterday and it seemed fairly straightforward. Guy is road-raging and gets shot by a woman with a permit who was in fear for her life. Since yesterday, it’s changed considerably. Now, it’s that the shoot was questionable since a witness surfaced. I note that there’s no notation of the changes in the story. I’ll never understand how the media works.
September 18th, 2012 at 10:32 am
Horrible reporting. Was her car parked? Was her door locked? Grand jury, indeed.
September 18th, 2012 at 12:31 pm
The witness seems to have not witnessed anything, according to the news account. Which makes his testimony pretty weak. Not noticing does not mean nothing happened.
September 18th, 2012 at 1:50 pm
And there was another witness in the vehicle with the woman. While the fact that they were together means there might be bias in her account to protect the woman, her version of events apparently confirmed the woman’s story.
I wonder what the gas station’s security tapes showed?
September 18th, 2012 at 2:32 pm
Unless accompanied by video (Not still faux-tographs) all media stories are considered inaccurate.
Incident I was involved in as an officer resulted in a story that was accurate only in:
1. Day incident took place.
2. Location.
Time of day, individuals involved, and outcome were all wrong. After airing the story the station then called for “clarifications.” We maintained “No comment”
September 18th, 2012 at 7:48 pm
“Horrible reporting.”
Horrible reporting is standard reporting for the anti-gun MSM. They suck at their job!
September 19th, 2012 at 12:22 pm
C’mon Unc, you give yourself too little credit: you understand exactly how the media works.
September 19th, 2012 at 2:40 pm
When they use ‘victim’, who are they referring to? Could be the woman, could be the dead guy.