That description of events is at odds with other witnesses' descriptions, and, given the author's use of conclusory logic and inflammatory (defamatory?) Language, I do not find it credible. That is the problem with journalism generally any more. Journalists no longer seek facts, they seek confirmation of their predilections. There is no discipline in the profession anymore, and the audience is lazy too.
There are, always have been and always will be contradictory accounts of any event when there is more than one eyewitness. Are you sure you're not being biased with respect to your own predilection?
You weren't there. Neither was I. Neither was the person who wrote the article. All we have are second, third, fourth-hand accounts.
I agree, though, that a lot of journalism has become bastardized because of a lack of rigor in the reporting. But I tend to trust things that coincide with what I saw on the video, as opposed to some idealized version that makes one feel better.
