| In the General/Chat forum, on a thread titled Delivery Man Mercilessly Kills Angie Harmon’s Dog, DiogenesLamp wrote: |
| And...you think I'm biased? Yup. I think you made up your mind what you wished to believe, and your primary motivation for wanting to believe it is an instinctive dislike of celebrities whom you seem to believe think they are better than everyone else, as noted in the following example of what you wrote. Are the police just supposed to take the word of a grieving pet owner ... And because she has so many fans? You want to hate her, that's fine. I don't know her and I don't have any biases for or against her. I feel sorry for people who can't treat others as they would have themselves treated. Looking at her as an ordinary citizen, I think her side has as much or more merit than what we have been told about the other side. You and others knew right away who was lying and who was telling the truth. You are clearly smarter than I. It would take me a considerable amount of time to weigh the facts as they have been presented, and then come to a reasoned conclusion, but some of you could figure it out in just a few seconds! Bravo! Smarter than me by far. |
I saw a biased article - biased from the title down to the last lament. I proposed an alternative read which had as much evidence as the assertions in the article, just to balance the score. I concluded that without evidence, the police couldn't act. I don't hate the woman, but I am disgusted by her use of social media and fandom to cancel this guy (e.g., posting his profile on Instagram).
I rejected your suggestion that the black delivery man serving the countryside was probably an 'Amish' whom the police didn't want to touch, when there's no evidence to suggest he was untrustworthy: no gang, no urban setting, no criminal history, no denial about shooting the dog, no avoiding the police, and no concern from police after they investigated.
Well well well... the plot thickens.
My "Amish" theory is starting to look like a good call.
One of the commenters at the link said:
I find that to be a quite plausible theory.
Why *IS* this guy working under someone else's name? If he lied about that, what else might he lie about?
Also he said the dog "attacked" him. No scratches, no torn clothes. Sounds like the dog didn't even touch him.
I don't think it constitutes an "attack" when a dog growls at you. I think it actually has to make contact with you before you could legitimately claim it "attacked" you.
No evidence of an attack. Shown to be a liar on one significant point already. (Delivering under a false identity.)
I wonder if he's got a record? I'm sure the cops know.
https://www.boredpanda.com/angie-harmon-dog-shot-instacart-deliver-man/
I rejected your suggestion that the black delivery man serving the countryside was probably an 'Amish' whom the police didn't want to touch, when there's no evidence to suggest he was untrustworthy: no gang, no urban setting, no criminal history, no denial about shooting the dog, no avoiding the police, and no concern from police after they investigated. So you already knew the delivery driver was black? I didn't. I just guessed based on my knowledge of North Carolina* and the behavior of the perp. I know a lot of black people are jumpy around dogs, (snakes too) and this behavior struck me as an inordinate fear of the animals.
So my theory about the cops not wanting to create themselves problems is also strengthened. We've already seen how cops have become shy about enforcing the law when black suspects are involved.
So you've seen this guy's Instagram? Why don't you post it so we can all find out who this guy is and whether he has a record for violent behavior?
.
.
.
* I had a good friend who is black and whom I drove all the way to North Carolina to attend his daughter's graduation. We stayed at one of his friend's house. The area was dominantly black.