Because the article is not a primary source, and it’s published on a website that rarely if ever “breaks” a story. The only way for the site to stay in business is to publish glorified rewordings of whatever primary source published a set of facts today. The further you get from the primary source, the more “filler” content is required to justify yet another piece about the same subject.

Are you talking about this specific article? I thought it was unusually factually dense for a blog site, since it is in effect a tl;dr of another, very meaty story.

Not sure about any niche audience here (haven't hung around that long), but that last paragraph got all my red flags up as well. Writers like this need a body cam of their own. Oh wait, that's right, there is one already - called the internet...

Which may prove that proof of rotten behavior is not enough to solve the problem when the root cause is confusion as to what is appropriate behavior in the first place.

But all of those things in the last paragraph happened, and I believe all of them were outside of Baltimore.

Cigarettes was NYC, shot in the back was SC I believe. I don't remember where the person was shot in front of his daughter. I think that was the school cafeteria worker who was shot in his car. None of the police were convicted except the SC one, and the whole incident was caught on video.

You seem outraged, but is anything they said wrong?

In the last paragraph:

> It is not just Baltimore cops. It is cops. They will shoot you in the face in front of your infant daughter. They will choke you to sleep for selling cigarettes. They will shoot you in the back for walking away.

It appears his main point is to say because these Baltimore cops have been accused, all cops are guilty.

Not the OP, but I would say that is implying that _all_ cops could do this. I don't think that is the case. As with anything, you have a small group that thinks it is above the law and acts that way.

The unfortunate reality is that the other LEOs that don't do something about the bad LEOs make themselves just as culpable. Worse, the LEOs that try to do something get punished by their fellow LEOs (even the 'good' ones) and their union. With that situation being the case, a blanket statement about LEOs being bad is not totally off base.