LOL.
Read the article a little more closely. The reporters from AIM saw only "the intial stages of the assault". The second time they mention the situation, they refer to it as an "incident". Their reporting of the beating HAD to be second hand, as they did not witness anything after he was removed from the area. Their reporting of the beating is, therefore, from the uncorroborated words of the victim.
That you choose to be so uncritical of what you read is, as I said before, your business. It is neither dumb nor moronic to be skeptical under the circumstances. As we have seen many times before, folks with an agenda (part of which is to make a public spectacle) will sometimes exaggerate. I will not jump on this as fact any more readily than I would the "reports" that GW was a National Guard deserter.
What you (or I, for that matter) think or believe about this situation is, of course, meaningless as to the facts of the matter.
you know what??? whatever...
the poor man has already been beaten and hurt...it was a piece showing the obvious bias of news EVEN from the National Press Club....but whatever....I wouldnt want you to feel compassion for anyone if you are "skeptical" (sic)..
as IF , if you posted compassion for this man, it would move the earth... sheesh