> Gunpowder residue is not seen on the hands. A GSR kit is performed," the report reads in part.
> That GSR kit was sent off to the GBI Crime Lab for analysis. The findings were released Tuesday. This report "revealed the presence of particles characteristic of gunshot primer residue."
The autopsy did not find visible residue. That is quite different from your conclusion "the autopsy found there wasn't gunpowder on their hands".
If you're shot 57 times you will end up covered in gunpowder. If you're shot in the hands, like the victim, you'll have gunpowder on your hands. If a bunch of cops panic fire into you and then handle your lifeless corpse the gunpowder from their hands will end up on you.
I urge you to consider the owner of this media outlet and what political ties they likely have. Propaganda works best when veiled in a guise of neutrality.
If you don't like or believe reading the quotes from the reports on a right-biased media source, perhaps you'll like or believe reading them more on a left-biased media source (the details in which I find even more compelling that the protester very likely discharged their firearm):
> The Atlanta Journal-Constitution (AJC) is the only major daily newspaper in the metropolitan area of Atlanta, Georgia, United States. It is the flagship publication of Cox Enterprises.
Cox Enterprises is ringing extremely loud warning bells. This is the same Cox that is time and again accused of being an internet and TV monopoly and taking advantage of their customers with exploitative, borderline illegal tactics. I don't trust them one bit. I'm willing to bet in a place like Atlanta, with the history it has, there's still a good ol' boys club with deep roots, operating as the Chamber of Commerce or another faceless, buried, quasi-bureaucratic market-capture and -manipulation mechanism. It's such a mundane point to make because of how ubiquitous this pattern is, but bears repeating in this context. It always seems paranoid to point out this possibility until it's proven true. You can see a recent expression of this tendency in the raid on that elderly reporter in Kansas, the one that stressed her out so much she died.
Again, critical reading is imperative here. Especially considering how news media outlets today frequently rely on "access journalism" -- ie, favorable coverage and language in exchange for voluntary participation by police in accessing details about new stories -- we should expect that large outlets (especially ones with captive audiences such as "the only major daily newspaper in the metropolitan area of Atlanta, Georgia"; looks like they monopolized Atlanta's newspaper market, too) play games with rhetoric to maintain legitimacy while peppering in propaganda, in the name of "both sides" and "neutrality", in order to maintain access.
You shouldn't trust that 'allsides' website any more than you should trust anyone else. I certainly don't. You should also note: "As of September 2023, AllSides has low or initial confidence in our Lean left rating for Atlanta Journal-Constitution." This does not support your assertion that this media source is "left-biased". In fact upon further review that website relies exclusively on community reviews to label these websites. It has the same issues that any reporting mechanism of this form has, which makes it even less trustworthy.
ACJ is playing to their crowd just like the rest of them to maintain legitimacy and keep the money flowing. This isn't to say that everything in the news is fake, just that everything in the news is shaped by material forces working behind the scenes which helps to form the narratives that end up in the columns and webpages. Sometimes there's outright lies, sometimes lies by omission. It's as much about what is said as what isn't said. Sometimes even emphasis and rhetoric is enough to shift the narrative enough that certain perspectives are completely memory-holed.
If you don't trust that the multiple media outlets have managed to copy and paste quotes correctly, then go to the original source reports and draw your conclusions.
I'm challenging the lack of journalistic integrity in actually investigating the claims contained within those quotes -- not whether the journalists are capable of stenography, but whether they are capable of journalism.
What investigation do you want them to do on the gunshot residue point? Dig up the body, swab the hands, and run their own GSR test?
I get that it's inconvenient for one side in the standoff for gunshot residue to be found on their hands. I don't have any reasonable double that there was.
Asking literally anyone except police is a good start. Police are acting as privileged gatekeepers of information and saying "just trust me bro". I expect HN community members to carry themselves to a higher standard here and really dig in. I'm sorry to say it but I'm really starting to doubt your sincerity.
Plenty of experts on primer residue and other forensics topics out there. "Is it possible that this amount of residue is due to the bullets shot at and into Tortuguita and not due to shots fired from a weapon held by him? Do you find it credible that wounds such as those through the palms of Tortuguita coincide with the narrative that he was wielding a gun at the time of his death?" Easy peasy, and I didn't even go to school for journalism. I'm sure there's other means of finding credible information. They could also quote those other activists who were witness to the death and put those quotes on equal footing with those from the police, but they don't.
> I don't have any reasonable double [sic] that there was.
Assuming you meant "doubt": then you're playing a one-sided game while scolding others for what you perceive is one-sidedness. To me it is hypocritical to do so.
