Media instigators pull out of Furguson after evidence piles up in support of police officer

If they'd announced that within 24 hours there wouldn't have been riots in the first place.

If it bleeds, it leads. It's unfortunate that journalists have to stoop so low to compete with any Joe schmoe with an internet connection, but professional journalism doesn't put food on the table anymore. Which is too bad, because it would be nice to not have to question the bias and intent behind every friggin story.

According to WND.....

Journalism is fraud wrote:

http://www.wnd.com/2014/08/ferguson-calm-amid-further-evidence-backing-officer/

Now the story doesn't fit their predetermined narrative so there's no "story" anymore.

Yes there is a story, but it's about how low journalism has become these days that they would whip up the mob mentality just to bolster THEIR OWN prejudicial notions about race and police.

Don't expect apologies from them either. They'll just wait for their next opportunity to cry RACISM.

The consequences for their journalistic negligence is that millions of dollars in property were lost, stolen or destroyed by the mob violence that they fabricated.

There is no "evidence". Just some anonymous 3rd party hearsay.

R2D3 wrote:

If they'd announced that within 24 hours there wouldn't have been riots in the first place.

Better to release information first then investigate later? That's how the media works, not law enforcement.

Sooo, you're saying that it is not true?

Are you destroying the messenger, or the message?

Lol please tell me WND is performance art lampooning RWNJs. Just look at the headlines on their front page!

Facts indicate no racism involved at all, contrary to the wishes of the racist agitators like Holder, Jackson, and Sharpton. Our liberal media at its finest once again.

Media excellence again. wrote:

Facts indicate no racism involved at all

The police department saying they're angels is not evidence.

Below is a report by one of the reporters arrested in Ferguson.

Their

Angles

of police doing the same thing in a similar situation in Ferguson.

http://www.presstv.com/detail/2014/08/21/376081/new-video-shows-us-police-kill-black-man/

Read up on Ali Muhammad Brown. Maybe the media can head to New Jersey and Seattle and provide national attention to his crimes.

The article cited by OP is terrible analysis. It doesn't matter that Brown robbed a store. It doesn't matter that Brown assaulted and battered officer Wilson. After each of these, if Brown withdrew from his aggressions, then officer Wilson's use of force was unjustified. The fact is that all of the eyewitness accounts say that Wilson withdrew and was retreating when officer Wilson shot him. That is an indisputable fact. For these reasons, the fact that some eyewitnesses also say that Wilson had been an aggressor are irrelevant.

You apparently don't know any of the facts of this case. All your witnesses say he was running away with his hands up. Now they know I this crap. They also know the final shot was with Brown about 2-3 feet from Wilson. Backing away? Running away? Lol, I don't think so you tool.

In a world . . . wrote:

The article cited by OP is terrible analysis. It doesn't matter that Brown robbed a store. It doesn't matter that Brown assaulted and battered officer Wilson. After each of these, if Brown withdrew from his aggressions, then officer Wilson's use of force was unjustified. The fact is that all of the eyewitness accounts say that Wilson withdrew and was retreating when officer Wilson shot him. That is an indisputable fact. For these reasons, the fact that some eyewitnesses also say that Wilson had been an aggressor are irrelevant.

bwhahaha!

In a world . . . wrote:

The article cited by OP is terrible analysis. It doesn't matter that Brown robbed a store. It doesn't matter that Brown assaulted and battered officer Wilson. After each of these, if Brown withdrew from his aggressions, then officer Wilson's use of force was unjustified. The fact is that all of the eyewitness accounts say that Wilson withdrew and was retreating when officer Wilson shot him. That is an indisputable fact. For these reasons, the fact that some eyewitnesses also say that Wilson had been an aggressor are irrelevant.

You forgot to put the word liberal in front of media in your headline

When you resorted to name-calling I knew then that you know now that your argument is terrible; such is the way on fora like this. In any event, I'm not sure what you are trying to say because of the typos, but the distance of the final shot does not matter. Let me explain. All eye-witnesses say that Brown died at 35 feet from the cruiser (that is where the body and car were after the incident, roughly ten yards away), yet Brown's assault of officer Wilson took place inside the cruiser, with Brown reaching in. Officer Brown started firing as he exited his cruiser. Again, all eye-witnesses confirm this. Thus, even if Brown charged at officer Wilson, it was after officer Wilson's first shot at Brown. So then the only legal issue is whether officer Wilson could keep firing on Brown to kill once Brown charged. The answer here is no, officer Wilson cannot legally use force in such a manner, since he caused Brown to charge by his initiating his firing sequence after Brown had withdrawn. This is an issue that should go to the jury. All I am saying is that there should be a trial to determine who initiated the final conflict after Brown withdrew and officer Wilson exited his cruiser.

When you get your facts straight, get back to me because little if anything you said is true.

Please stop your lame trolling. You are embarrassing yourself and this DB in general, which is pretty hard to do, honestly.