moosemilkie

It didn't even ask for permission the first time.

What is "going wrong" in your scenario, though?

And there go the goalposts.

You manage to "revolutionise game journalism" yet?

Why take the risk? They were probably deleted for a good reason.

I merely wanted to let you know that your assumption that their example was hypothetical was wrong, since you filled it out with some fictitious details instead of the truth. Which you're still doing, in claiming that anybody shot a police officer - no officer was injured in the incident. This would make your suggestion less correct, rather than more correct, since it is false.

If you're aware, then why lie, and say they didn't know what happened? Why make up a fairy tale about "violent, righteous riots" and an injured police officer? I can't tell you how it affects your point because I apparently don't understand what your point was supposed to be.

If you click the "source" link at the bottom of the piece, you'll find that this is not a hypothetical situation. That's an actual statement put out the police themselves, who know exactly what happened.