- Messages
- 689
- Reactions
- 797
Back to the OP for a second. For those that have stated that the woman in the video is in hot water. That woman did not appear to fire the shotgun.
This is the stuff I hate in today's "reporting".
The article headline: "Not in my backyard! Woman throws stones before using a GUN to get rid of nosy neighbour's drone"
When in fact she was "using a gun" it is not like the headline implies. Reporters know this, and write it this way to 'grab' the readers attention. When they are just ruining their credibility. (IMHO)
First line: "A woman lost her temper at a nosy neighbour's drone and aimed a gun at it to make it buzz off."
How does the author know she lost her temper. Implies that gun owners' are angry, or anything can just set them off.
A little further down: "After throwing what appeared to be stones at the device she then grabbed a gun and appeared to try to fire the aerial spy out of the sky."
To my knowledge there is nothing illegal about appearing to fire a gun. And on your own property. The author of the article should have said 'pointed the gun'. And they say "throwing what appeared to be stones" when it is clear she was throwing something, and then reports that she "appeared to try to fire", in a sense saying throwing stones is the same as appearing to fire the gun. (Side note: the way that woman pointed that shotgun had she fired, I think the drone would have been dead in it tracks.
And further down: "The livid woman took aim at the device but it is not clear whether or not she fired a shot."
Now she is "livid". Again, how does the reporter know this.
More times that not, reporters piss me off.
This is the stuff I hate in today's "reporting".
The article headline: "Not in my backyard! Woman throws stones before using a GUN to get rid of nosy neighbour's drone"
When in fact she was "using a gun" it is not like the headline implies. Reporters know this, and write it this way to 'grab' the readers attention. When they are just ruining their credibility. (IMHO)
First line: "A woman lost her temper at a nosy neighbour's drone and aimed a gun at it to make it buzz off."
How does the author know she lost her temper. Implies that gun owners' are angry, or anything can just set them off.
A little further down: "After throwing what appeared to be stones at the device she then grabbed a gun and appeared to try to fire the aerial spy out of the sky."
To my knowledge there is nothing illegal about appearing to fire a gun. And on your own property. The author of the article should have said 'pointed the gun'. And they say "throwing what appeared to be stones" when it is clear she was throwing something, and then reports that she "appeared to try to fire", in a sense saying throwing stones is the same as appearing to fire the gun. (Side note: the way that woman pointed that shotgun had she fired, I think the drone would have been dead in it tracks.
And further down: "The livid woman took aim at the device but it is not clear whether or not she fired a shot."
Now she is "livid". Again, how does the reporter know this.
More times that not, reporters piss me off.