Except that it doesn't: the fact that a cop was shot doesn't imply that Teran shot first. In terms of evidence of that specific claim, the evidence is exactly as it stood at the time of publication (and at the time of me writing this.)
Second, https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/the-field-of-fire...
Note the distinct absence of any evidence that protesters fired at police. The police have access to hundreds of cameras at the scene, from bodycams to professional videographers on police payroll, to drones and aircraft.
If there was evidence that protesters fired at police, you can bet the police would be publishing it.
Decent probability this was friendly fire.
The editors of The Guardian want their readers misled. This is very deliberate. Everything the article says will be true if taken literally, except the quotes of interviewed people, which will often be lies. The crucial facts to understanding what happened will be either completely omitted (omission of facts is not a falsehood), or delegated to second half of of the article, and even then, it will typically be in vague, unclear terms. This is how media operates today, and it shouldn’t be surprising that the trust in media is collapsing across the board.
Ha. No. Now realize that every other article in the Guardian is just as deliberately misleading.
I'm not sure what's the point you're trying to make here. If you read my previous comment, you'd realize that I didn't rule out that this was an "assassination", only that there wasn't any evidence to support that claim, and absent that it was responsible to leap to the conclusion of "assassination".
Reality: Activist was "protesting" (ie. camping out) at the future site of a police training facility, cops arrived to kick them out, and there was a shoot-out that resulted in the activist being shot dead and a cop being injured.
I'm not sure how the title got past the editors, considering how misleading it is. It's technically true that the "assassinated in cold blood" part was a quote, but presenting it at face value, when there's little evidence of wrongdoing by the cops is wholly irresponsible for a seemingly reputable publication like the guardian. A much better headline would be "activist killed in shootout with police", or even "‘Assassinated in cold blood’, Mother claims: activist killed protesting Georgia’s ‘Cop City’"
Also, I noticed the article was also exceedingly skeptical about the state's version of events:
>Officials say Manuel shot first at a state trooper “without warning” and an officer or officers returned fire, but they have produced no evidence for the claim. The trooper was described as stable and in hospital Thursday.
but the press release have since provided additional details to support the state's version of events
>Forensic ballistic analysis has confirmed that the projectile recovered from the trooper’s wound matches Teran’s handgun.
But I'll let that slide given that the update came on January 20th, and the article was published early January 21th at 5am.