5 ms·

Let me get this "Fact" straight. Law enforcement throws a "non-lethal munition" directly at a protester who subsequently loses her arm, but it was probably some

by namesbc 10y ago

Let me get this "Fact" straight. Law enforcement throws a "non-lethal munition" directly at a protester who subsequently loses her arm, but it was probably something else that just happened to coincide with the "non-lethal munition" explosion, and not their grenade? Right.

KevinEldon 10y ago
It would help your argument if you cited public records. Is there a news story, social media discussion, some other documentation of the incident? Do we know who was involved... was it law enforcement or private security? Was the protester in a space they legally had access to or had they moved onto privately owned land?
- Zaskoda 10y ago
  Not OP but I know how to Google: http://www.snopes.com/2016/11/22/standing-rock-protester-in-danger-of-losing-arm-after-police-use-force/ http://www.snopes.com/2016/11/22/standing-rock-protester-in-...
  - DrScump 10y ago
    This is a Snopes news article, not a Fact Check entry. It has a lone author who only quotes "protester" accounts.
    - Zaskoda 10y ago
      Ok, I'll try using Google again. This time I'll go with the NPR article because they're widely considered a reliable source: http://www.npr.org/sections/thetwo-way/2016/11/23/503120449/woman-injured-at-standing-rock-protest-might-lose-arm-family-says http://www.npr.org/sections/thetwo-way/2016/11/23/503120449/... They're even very clear as to who says what. Note, I never claimed to be providing a fact check entry. Rather, the post I was responding to requested, "Is there a news story, social media discussion, some other documentation of the incident?" The answer is, "yes, lots." Depending on where you source your news, you either heard about it a ton or heard about it none, but rarely in between.
      - DrScump 10y ago
        Again, only protester accounts, claiming that police threw a weapon with which they weren't even equipped. The punctured-tanks-as-weapons theory sounds credible, and I doubt any of those protesters could properly identify a concussion grenade if they saw one (nor could most people in the general population).

by namesbc 10y ago

KevinEldon 10y ago

It would help your argument if you cited public records. Is there a news story, social media discussion, some other documentation of the incident? Do we know who was involved... was it law enforcement or private security? Was the protester in a space they legally had access to or had they moved onto privately owned land?

Zaskoda 10y ago
Not OP but I know how to Google: http://www.snopes.com/2016/11/22/standing-rock-protester-in-danger-of-losing-arm-after-police-use-force/ http://www.snopes.com/2016/11/22/standing-rock-protester-in-...
- DrScump 10y ago
  This is a Snopes news article, not a Fact Check entry. It has a lone author who only quotes "protester" accounts.
  - Zaskoda 10y ago
    Ok, I'll try using Google again. This time I'll go with the NPR article because they're widely considered a reliable source: http://www.npr.org/sections/thetwo-way/2016/11/23/503120449/woman-injured-at-standing-rock-protest-might-lose-arm-family-says http://www.npr.org/sections/thetwo-way/2016/11/23/503120449/... They're even very clear as to who says what. Note, I never claimed to be providing a fact check entry. Rather, the post I was responding to requested, "Is there a news story, social media discussion, some other documentation of the incident?" The answer is, "yes, lots." Depending on where you source your news, you either heard about it a ton or heard about it none, but rarely in between.
    - DrScump 10y ago
      Again, only protester accounts, claiming that police threw a weapon with which they weren't even equipped. The punctured-tanks-as-weapons theory sounds credible, and I doubt any of those protesters could properly identify a concussion grenade if they saw one (nor could most people in the general population).