Dicus said the girl was wearing tactical gear as she exited a truck’s passenger side and ran toward the sheriff’s deputies. She fell to the ground amid the gunfire. The deputies did not initially realize it was the girl who was running toward them, Dicus said, because she was wearing a helmet and a military-style vest that can hold armored plates.
Dicus said the girl was wearing tactical gear as she exited a truck’s passenger side and ran toward the sheriff’s deputies. She fell to the ground amid the gunfire was gunned down by cops in typical shoot-first-ask-questions-later fashion. The deputies did not initially realize bother to think it was the girl who was running toward them that maybe the small, unarmed person running toward them while someone else from the vehicle was shooting might be the kidnapped girl mistakenly thinking the police were there to save her, Dicus said, because she was wearing a helmet and a military-style vest that can hold armored plates we need an excuse to say the police were scared for their lives in order to avoid punishment for wildly firing at a vehicle with a child inside and gunning down the victim when she was running towards perceived safety and clearly it's her fault for not staying inside the vehicle we were actively riddling with bullets.
It's not jumping to conclusions, it's deductive reasoning based on timeline and history. 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 And while the AP may not outright say it, the LA Times will: Deputies kill father and teen...
It's not jumping to conclusions, it's deductive reasoning based on timeline and history. 12345678
That's not deductive reasoning, it's inductive. And while American police certainly have no track record of being heroes, we don't even know what happened here? I have no problem with the LA Times...
That's not deductive reasoning, it's inductive. And while American police certainly have no track record of being heroes, we don't even know what happened here? I have no problem with the LA Times headline, it's a factual statement. You're re-telling might be, but I don't understand the point of constructing a narrative before any details have arrived.
Alternate title
Amber Alert cancelled after police shoot kidnapped child running toward them for safety
Translation:
I'm not saying we need to take them at their word, but it doesn't help anyone to pretend we know everything and jump to conclusions either.
It's not jumping to conclusions, it's deductive reasoning based on timeline and history. 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8
And while the AP may not outright say it, the LA Times will: Deputies kill father and teen daughter in wild freeway shootout after alleged abduction
That's not deductive reasoning, it's inductive. And while American police certainly have no track record of being heroes, we don't even know what happened here? I have no problem with the LA Times headline, it's a factual statement. You're re-telling might be, but I don't understand the point of constructing a narrative before any details have arrived.
Holy shit what a red herring of a title.