It’s insane if you actually believe this.  It takes a seriously broken brain to boil your interpretation down to this garbage.

He was also drunk driving, interesting fact reported well before this piece was written.  It wasn’t important to the opinion piece obviously.

“Sure, he ran after running a few red lights...” Not a big deal huh? Oh, the guy was drunk too and fleeing police.

You know why.  You’ve selectively left out the parts about the author assuming negative intent of the police + significantly minimizing and even actively leaving out parts of the story to help make the suspect look like the victim here (e.g. he was drunk driving).

The author conveniently left out the fact the suspect was later arrested and charged with a DUI in addition the other chargers. Does that change anything for you when you add suspected drunk driver to the initial exchange?

This sounds smarter than it is.  Feel free to add something if you would like.

This is 100% more articulate and reasonable way to position an argument that is highly agreeable. Smart policies that weigh the level of seriousness with the risks taken in response to a situation, completely get it and agree with it.

Not even close.

Nah, that would be silly as that’s obviously not that part of your take that is progressively biased.

Well so much for Jalopnik... this used to be an objective place with interesting automotive news and stories. We get it, the entire G/O media group is on the left and hammers visitors with progressive hot takes daily, but c’mon please keep Jalopnik free of garbage takes like this. Gizmodo was lost ages ago, but now J…