State Cop Shoots at Minivan Full of Kids

[Orrex]

118. Well, what's your motive for misstating the facts?

You simply ignore the fact that the driver was stopped for speeding and then twice fled the scene by vehicle, thereby endangering her children, other drivers, and the pursuing cops.

Do you deny that the driver was speeding?
Do you deny that the driver fled the scene?
Do you deny that the driver fled the scene a second time?
Do you deny that the driver resisted the cop who attempted to restrain her after she'd already fled the scene twice?
Do you deny that the passenger exited the vehicle and aggressively charged at the cop?

Instead of accepting that the driver bears any responsibility, you paint her as the innocent victim. In your reimagining, she's not "the driver fleeing the scene" or "the suspect resisting arrest" but rather the "very frightened mother who was being assaulted at the time by an armed and violent MAN." By your reckoning, a woman is not accountable for criminal behavior if she has kids and can claim that a male cop frightened her. How very retrograde of you.

You also magically absolve the passenger--almost the same size as the cop--of any responsibility, because "children react rather than deliberate." Boys will be boys, in other words. Presumably, if I were 14 and assaulted your mother, you would simply shake your head and shrug at the spirited whimsy of youth. How convenient!

And despite all of this--the speeding, the flight from the scene, the second flight from the scene, the resisting arrest, the assault of a cop, the driver's choice to endanger the children, other drivers, and the police--the most upsetting thing to you is the fact that I used a plural rather than singular noun.


One might think very poorly of your wacky priorities if you were to focus on semantics in preference to fact.