Small Business Week Needs Help
Speculation Abounds About Carlson Not Going on Shapiro
Erick Erickson Warns Republicans About 2020
Poll Looks Into American Mindset About War
YIKES: Mallory McMorrow Doubles Down on Smug, NASTY Comments About Rural Americans and...
Justine Bateman Describes Gavin Newsom's BIZARRE Hand Gestures and Unnerving Behavior in 3...
CNN's Kasie Hunt Tries Tripping Scott Jennings Up With Anti-America Poll and HOOBOY...
Abigail Spanberger Can Take Her Unity Post and Stick It Where the Sun...
WHY Would He Do THAT?! Ruben Gallego Tries QUIETLY Deleting Certain Threads With...
Lefties PANIC As DataRepublican EXPOSES Miles Taylor's Unsecured GTFO ICE Site in THREAD...
LOL! Just Cement Him As the GOAT: John Kennedy DROPS Iran Regime the...
Project Runway: Video That Imagines Marco Rubio Running Spirit Airlines Is Just Plane...
Post Millennial Reporter Mobbed by Antifa at ICE Detention Facility
Justice Kagan Writes in Dissent That the VRA ‘Was Born of the Literal...
Elizabeth Warren Ran With ANOTHER Opportunity to Get Ratioed (This Time With Her...

'Despicable rag of a paper!' Outrage at the NY Post's Eric Garner front page, but is it fair? [photo]

Here is what New Yorkers are reading this morning after yesterday’s grand jury decision not to indict NYPD Officer Daniel Pantaleo in the death of Eric Garner:

Advertisement

There is some confusion, however, on the meaning of the Post’s cover. Is it a statement of outrage at the grand jury’s decision or a statement that they agree with the grand jury or just a statement of fact with pics designed to sell papers?

https://twitter.com/_ouisa/status/540469150112833537

https://twitter.com/_ouisa/status/540469285676933120

https://twitter.com/mike_shortt/status/540472359384547328

https://twitter.com/cpazzanese/status/540473199772069888

The Post’s editorial this morning titled “No Indictment” suggests the third interpretation might be the correct one. An excerpt:

After reviewing all the evidence, the 23 men and women on a Staten Island grand jury cleared Police Officer Daniel Pantaleo in the July 17 choking death of Eric Garner.

Our view here is similar to our take last week on a Missouri grand jury’s decision not to indict the police officer who fatally shot Michael Brown.

Only the grand jurors have seen all the evidence, and, after they did, they apparently concluded Officer Pantaleo’s actions showed no malice or intent to harm.

Instead, they saw an unnecessary death that stemmed from Eric Garner’s decision to resist cops trying to arrest him for selling illegal cigarettes.

Had the 350-pound Garner not physically resisted, requiring Pantaleo and his fellow cops to take him to the ground, he would likely be alive today.

Advertisement

Some, however, are clearly angry at the Post and think the cover means the NY Post agrees with the grand jury decision whereas the editorial today makes no such claim:

https://twitter.com/abitofbrownsuga/status/540485423253164032

https://twitter.com/TomNamako/status/540480267279155200

https://twitter.com/DrLMPonte/status/540486165116489728

So, what do you think?

***

Related:

Twitchy coverage of Eric Garner.

 

Join the conversation as a VIP Member

Recommended

Trending on Twitchy Videos

Advertisement
Advertisement
Advertisement