I am rejecting nothing factual. I am rejecting as fact a report you want me to say is fact.
What....because you said?
Or, because a reporter said what he heard?
Sorry, JC, it is you that are grabbing at reports and claiming them to be fact because they supports your thesis.
Facts are proven in a court of law, or, are laid out in a final report with factual evidence (ie Coroner's Report, etc.), and then even that can be called into question if the family experienced something different and challenges it.
You are calling a news report a "fact," I choose not to.
Has nothing to do with proving me wrong or right. I have said that if the child is shown by factual evidence (which has not been presented yet) to have been dead, then the man should definitely not have tried to get into the house, particularly if he was told by the people on the scene that the child was already dead. But we do not know any of that yet.
If they did know, and told him, and he continued to try, then restraining him is appropriate and they could have tried that...but not tazing him.
You are willing to jump to your own conclusions when you believe the reports substantiate what you believe. Fine. I prefer to wait until that is all shown to be in fact the case.
Been there done that.
“You are calling a news report a “fact,” I choose not to.”
So facts apparently are whatever you make of them.