Mediated #4 Here we go again...

Off-duty St. Louis Cop Kills Man, Sparking Protest

Here we go again. Another white cop kills an 18-year-old black kid causing more protests. This case is quite different from Michael Brown's case since the officer was off-duty and he only fired at the black kid because the kid shot off three rounds at the officer first. Also the officer was off-duty, but still working as a security guard when it happened. When I first heard about this story on the radio this morning I automatically had that off-the-cuff knee jerk reaction. I automatically started to get angry that people were rioting the fact that this officer shot this 18-year-old adult in self defense. All the little news blip on the radio gave was that people in Missouri were rioting again because another cop shot a black kid. I wanted more information. As soon as I got home I went to my computer and looked it up. As it turns out I was right to feel the way I did.

This article came from MSN and was written by the Associated Press. I found it to be cogent... or maybe fallacious? I absolutely hate the title. I wish they would have said something like 'Off-duty Cop Kills man in Self-Defense', but that doesn't make it fallacious. An off-duty cop did kill a man, sparking a protest. However, I feel as though the title and the article itself was written to get people riled up; to make people feel those heated emotions no matter what side you agree with. In the article it gives information according to St. Louis Police Chief Col. Sam Dotson that the 18-year-old opened fire on the the 32-year-old police officer, who returned fire and killed the man. Dotson also said that the gun was recovered and ballistic evidence shows the teen fired three shots and tried to fire again, but his gun jammed.

Then further down in the article it tells us that people who describe themselves as relatives of the deceased told the St. Louis Post dispatch that the man was unarmed. This makes me question even more so the intent of the victim and his family when they say he wasn't armed, but the man's gun was recovered and they have ballistic evidence. It does however help the police officer's case. The thing that made me angry as I was reading this article is that the people protesting automatically jumped to the conclusion that this black kid did nothing wrong that would give reason for him to be shot by the officer, and that the officer must be a racist that wanted to kill this black teen. People all over need to realize that most of the time these police officers are just doing their jobs. They should get all the facts before they go out and protest. 

With all that being said, I'm going to say this article is in fact cogent even if it leaves questions unanswered. It tries to give both sides of the story with what little facts the press had to go off of at the time. I also have to say it is cogent because it is not an opinion piece and the reporter was giving facts. I may not agree with the way it was written or the title it was given, but it is a cogent article.