BREAKING: COPS: NYT Reporter Who Published #DarrenWilson Address Calling Cops Nonstop

Got News ^ | 1/28/14

[Impala64ssa]

The New York Times journalist who published Darren Wilson’s home address wants police protection and has been calling the police nonstop, Gotnews.com has learned.

Julie Bosman “keeps calling the 020th District station complaining about people harassing and threatening her,” our source told us. She’s also “complaining about numerous food deliveries being sent to her residence.”

Chicago police department sources alerted Gotnews.com about the glaring double standard on Friday.

Gotnews.com published Julie Bosman’s address in Chicago after she published the address of Officer Darren Wilson and his new wife in a widely criticized move.

[arderkrag]

I find it highly suspect that people are crying foul now and not when the information was originally published in August. If it was really such a horrible thing, where was the outrage then? The Times publishes an old address, and suddenly people go apoplectic? I no longer understand.

[arderkrag]

The Times thought they had the right house

Do you have a source proving that?

[arderkrag]

Here’s the thing about Snopes-they back up what they say with easily accessible information. The common critique of the site is “it’s liberal” which is not much of a critique at all. If you disagree with the linked article, please link me to articles which prove otherwise. And please, no hiding behind “find it yourself”.

[Smokin' Joe]

Also, they haven’t lived at the listed address for quite some time. If the reporter had actually wanted to cause harm, she would have used the current address.

So, by publishing what is someone else' address as Wilson's, that makes p-o'ed hooligans showing up on the lawn at night with felonious intent okay? Even if someone else lives there?

What if that was your house, now?

[arderkrag]

It’s not about felonious intent, it’s about fact. The facts show his address was never printed. No one’s address was printed, in fact.

[Brother Cracker]

New York Times DEFENDS Its Decision To Publish Name Of Darren Wilson’s Home Street

Under pressure to pull the dangerous content, the Times removed from the reporters’ article a copy of Wilson’s marriage license containing personal information, but left in the street where Wilson owns a home alongside numerous other private citizens that could now be in danger of violence.

http://dailycaller.com/2014/11/28/new-york-times-defends-its-decision-to-publish-name-of-darren-wilsons-home-street/

[Lazamataz]

I find it highly suspect that people are crying foul now and not when the information was originally published in August. If it was really such a horrible thing, where was the outrage then?

Of COURSE you find it suspect. I do too! Strawmen arguments are very suspect!

Everyone who knew about the posting of the address was, indeed, outraged. Everyone, of course, except those on the left. And as more people found out about it, those people became outraged.

See, it's not very hard to become outraged over Doxxing. It is a crime against one's privacy, especially if you are a subject of death threats and promises of harm.

Further, until recently, we did not know it was an outdated address -- and frankly we do not know how much that publishing played a role in it *becoming* 'outdated'.

I no longer understand.

Oh, you understand very well. You simply excuse it.

[Lazamataz]

Welp, you blew arderkrag’s specious argument right out of the water with that one. Well done.

[Pajamajan]

"Bosman only has to worry about anonymous people having food delivered to her house. Officer Wilson and his family have to worry about being murdered"

BUMP

[Brother Cracker]

[arderkrag]

Left the STREET. A street is, as previously stated, not an address.

[arderkrag]

1. That isn't a strawman. If it's such a crime, where was the outrage in August?
2. No, I don't understand.

[Lazamataz]

1. That isn't a strawman. If it's such a crime, where was the outrage in August?

Of course it's a strawman. There WAS outrage in August... the few of us who heard about it. The outrage got louder the more people that heard about it.

You are a lame erector of strawmen. The strawman in question is the erroneous presupposition that there was no outrage. There indeed was.

[Lazamataz]

Left the STREET. A street is, as previously stated, not an address.

Originally published the ADDRESS. An address is, as previously stated, an address.

You defend the left and their heinous tactics. That makes you a Friend of the Left.

[dforest]

You do understand that all anyone needs is a street. They can ask surrounding dwellers where Darren Wilson lives. They have published his address twice and also published the name of his preganant wife.

That my FRiend, is scurrilous behavior.

[arderkrag]

Right.

[Lazamataz]

Here, I know what you can use, next, to defend the Left and their heinous tactics:

Dude, that was like, two months ago.

[Lazamataz]

No no no, how about this one:

[Lazamataz]

You are every bit as bad as those who are on the left, who defend utterly evil actions. You are behaving just like them. Hold your head high! Hell, Obama might appoint you to something!

[arderkrag]

Without a house number, IT ISN'T AN ADDRESS.

"Friend of the Left?" Yeah, sure. Nice fallback. Someone disagrees with you, so they must be liberal.