NY Times
April 26,2008
Editorial
This article talks about how three police officers who fired off 50 rounds of bullets at a man by the name of Sean Bell and got off free from all convictions. One policeman even reloaded his gun and continued shooting. The article discusses how even though they respect the decision that has been made from the judge, there should still be some investigation and ways to fix this problem because it has been happening to often. The author also speculates that part of the reason the cops have fired on the people they did is because they were black. Also they kind of assume that the cops may have been under the influence of alcohol at the time of teh shooting, but were not breathalyzed. The author believes we must correct the policy the police officers use. I think this could have been a good article if there was not a lot of presuming going on. They use no numbers to back up thier ideas that the cops may have been drunk or that this happened as many do because the person was black.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
2 comments:
Although presenting information, the author's bias can definitely be seen through the information he provides. Authors are able to skew information and leave out other information. Obviously, there must have been more facts besides these or the three cops would not have been released from the charges. The author doesn't mention why they were let go. To me this flaws the entire piece.
The author dosent mention why they were convicted in the first place. The author should have explained some of the other incidents that have happened in this type of situation. The author just guesses that they shot him because he was black and gives no facts to whether this is what the statics say.
Post a Comment