NY Times Reports On Castle Doctrine, Misses Bo Morrison Shooting
How could The New York Times go into great detail today in a case-study examination of Wisconsin's "Castle Doctrine" Law - -
- - and not report that the shooting of 20-year-old Bo Morrison reopened debate about the wisdom of the law?N.R.A.’s Influence Seen in Expansion of Self-Defense Laws
1 comment:
Maybe because they take their professionalism somewhat seriously, maybe because they have no vested interest in keeping their base riled up by re-writing history so that the Party has an "example" of the Trayvon case close to home. And maybe because people outside of WI actually READ the police reports before they start pounding like monkeys on keyboards. Maybe because the NYT is not in the WI Dem bloggers talking points echo chamber.
And maybe, JUST MAYBE they saw in the police report that the Bo Morrison case was NOT dependent on the Castle Doctrine at all, that The Homeowner would not have been charged under existing self-defense laws. So maybe they thought "hey! someone else might read the facts too! and we have some kind of reputation to uphold and can't just make stuff up". And so maybe they realized that all the rhetoric over Bo Morrison is falsely applied parallels that benefit a party's agenda, But Are Not True.
Maybe that.
Maybe someone cares about the truth and not just sacrificing some family for the sake of PR. I'm really revising my opinion of you as a blogger. You seem to have just thrown it to the winds. I knew you are really invested but now you're just all out going with the propaganda then? Good to know.
Be sure to scratch your head about why so many people are too "stupid" to vote and just end up staying home. People just get sick of constant lies and self-serving BS. People aren't as dumb and "uncaring" as you think. They DO care, which is why they're sick of the lies.
Once again, Bo Morrison case does NOT "need" the Castle Doctrine in order for the homeowner to not be strung up on the nearest tree or charged with murder. But that does not satisfy the party's bloodlust does it. WHO are the heartless barbarians now? I keep forgetting. This will be the last time I read your blog. It can't be trusted as being factual in the most basic aspects anymore. I know you won't miss me, that's not the point. YOU are the point. You are now actively spreading false information that benefits a political party at the expense of a Mom, a Dad, and two kids that you never met, know nothing about, and really have no qualms about any of that.
Post a Comment