Militia seizes Federal building

You're 100 percent right. But, if that's the case, then the public is stupid. The media needs to stop focusing on whether someone was "armed" or "unarmed" or not, as if the police were supposed to have X-ray vision.

 

Horseshit. The media should focus on giving the public the information it wants to know. Period. This isn't about a damned relevancy determination at a legal hearing. Instead it's about factually reporting the event, telling the public what happened. The notion that they need not mention the fact that the coat pocket contained a loaded handgun is ludicrous.

 

Of course they should mention it. But emphasis matters. Whether the suspect was armed or unarmed is almost always emphasized, often in the headline. The implication is that it is the most important piece of information. It's not. Not even close. Again: Police don't have X-ray vision.

Don't follow the reference to a "damned relevancy determination at a legal hearing."

 

You may have to link some examples of these articles you think are placing that improper emphasis, because I can't say I've noticed it. I don't believe anything I've read posited that the shooting was justified because the gun was in the pocket.

You're all caught up in the notion that its not relevant to deciding the justification question. Well, so what? That's not what these articles are asking the public to do. It's not their purpose. Instead it's to report, to tell the story of what happened by disclosing the facts the public wants to know. And the first question that comes to a great many minds after watching that video is "I wonder if he was armed?" To the extent the gun has supposedly been "emphasized", I'd say that's why, because it's simply a detail readers disproportionately want to know.

 

The fact seemed to gain some minor traction in the Michael Brown case.

 

Well, the Feds did hush that fuss.

 

Exactly. Even if you wanted to say there's no concrete proof the guy was reaching in his pocket for something (and I'm sure plenty of Bundy supporters are still making that claim), the incident happened moments after he attempted to flee a traffic stop and damn near ran over an agent. Do those things and there's no way any cop is going to give you the benefit of the doubt, nor should you get any benefit of the doubt. He can be hailed as a hero or martyr all the Bundy supporters want, the reality is he died by being an idiot and knowingly put cops into a no-win situation. Perhaps he was the nicest guy to ever roam this earth, the greatest dad ever. But in his final minutes on earth, he was far from that.

 

He was asking for it, dressed for it, and even laid down and enjoyed it.

 

Awww, they're worried that "weird shit" may happen to them in prison.

Maybe they should have thought about that sooner.

 

There is one possibility that could make me feel a minor amount of sympathy. It could be possible at this point that one or more of the remaining morons wants to surrender but fears being fragged by his fellow patriots if he attempts to do so.

 

Ok, I actually listened to some of that interview. These delusional people just can't understand why we wouldn't now just wanna pretend this whole thing never happened "...aww, c'mon, we were just kiddin bout all that..." And, of course, they've now dropped all pretense of this being about any sort of cause, admitting they're staying in there for one reason only--they don't want to face consequences. And I also liked this gem of logic: The govt should do nothing to them because it let Ferguson protesters get away with what they did ..you know, fair's fair!