There's always a difference between what you know and what you think you know

[xero]

3 hours ago, Patiently waiting for Truth said:

That is so funny considering the topic you've made here and the length of your first comment. 

You seem concerned about people's attitudes and about people 'grumbling'. 

I'm more concerned about the way JWs bring shame on God and Christ. 

 

You spend a lot of time worrying about other people's affairs. I think you'd be better off looking in the mirror.

[Space Merchant]

This is indeed true, judgement, at times, not always correct, comes into play in various forms in events (prior to, during, aftermath, later, etc.). This is true concerning eyewitnesses, for if more information is received (may not always be correct as you said, hence more interviews), the more visible the puzzle of the situation can visibly be seen, however, people can retain the choice of abiding by lawful constitutional  rights, even in these kinds of situations, which police officers are aware of and respect. That is if the person is questionable; the police would talk to said person because they suspect said person have committed a crime. If the person is detained, it means the police have ample evidence to commit to an arrest, resulting in admission to prompt an even stronger chance.

Lawful Constitutional enables one to have the right to remain silent, so the person, if he or she wishes, do not have to talk to law enforcement officers (or anyone else) in this regard.  It depends on the person, at times, the person is given time to speak another time, mainly when the case is still going. For others, if they feel ready to speak, they take said action to do so, mainly if they believe their input allows progression of a case.

In some cases yes, but not always correct, since audio and video feed can be altered, change in some way shape or form, several examples, even recent ones, i.e. a simple edit in audio/video resulted in a racial induced onslaught while the other side who called it out, it brutally attacked. Be it from an actual incident and or interview, all information must be presented instead of just going with the lackluster and claim it as a truth.

No one is immune to the latter. All men, women and children are subjected, as is the ability to take some form of action and or provide input vary between person to person. Beliefs, background does not provide immunity.

This is good in some instances, but can be problematic in other situations; to seek out those who share the same mentality - which leads to absurd instances in of itself.
That is also true in regards to feelings. Likewise people in some cases will spark emotion in order to evade factual information, they also become worrisome and can mock/attack you in the process, at the same time, they rally others to do the same thing. If an apple is red, which is fact, you use emotion to convince people it is blue, is problematic.

How I see it, some in today's society are quite sensitive when it comes to facts. You can show feeling into something, however, to avoid what is true can lead to problems, some of which we see today with all these groups either for the Red team or the Blue - Among the many arenas of which I have a disdain for, for some time now.

That being said, better to do enough research to reach a conclusion instead of being the type of person who goes about things irrationally. Something people have succumb to nowadays. Or as some say, even me - Facts over Feelings.

 

Sometimes the truth hurts for some people, and when the truth is spoken, their true colors flourish like a white rose among red roses.