Saturday, February 21, 2015

Decision Upcoming on Police Chief William McCollum

On New Year's, Police chief William McCollum shot his wife, Maggie, leaving her reportedly paralyzed from the waist down.

Analysis of his 911 call showed anger by McCollum, towards his wife.  In his 911 call, he did not use his wife's name, nor the word "wife", throughout.  This is not only extreme distancing language, but underscores an element of anger, during the call, towards the victim.
Regarding the responsibility of how the gun got into the bed, McCollum uses passivity in language; used to conceal responsibility.

Also noteworthy in the call is he avoids ownership of the gun, not using the word "my" in regard to the gun, at any time.  This is not only unexpected in the actual event, but it is indicative of distancing language, since law enforcement have a possessive nature towards their weapons, in general, as life savers.  That we later learned the McCollum was a licensed firearms instructor indicates even more distancing language.

We now learn that the Georgia Bureau of Investigation has finished its investigation and given the District Attorney their final report.  A decision regarding any criminal charges should be forthcoming.

Here is the article from  Note the quote with analysis in bold type to follow.
The language of the call indicates control, often found within Domestic Violence.  A report later surfaced that Maggie McCollum confided in professionals in Florida that she was a victim of Domestic Violence, though McCollum has no formal accusations against him.

The 911 call analysis is found here:

The district attorney deciding whether to bring charges against the Peachtree City police chief who shot his wife has received the GBI’s findings following a nearly two-month investigation.
Chief William McCollom called 911 around 4 a.m. on New Year’s Day to report he had accidentally shot his wife in the back when his gun discharged as he moved it from the bed where she was sleeping. Margaret McCollom was left paralyzed from the waist down and her husband was placed on administrative paid leave pending the GBI’s investigation.
Fayette County D.A. Scott Ballard on Friday told Channel 2 Action News he has “a pretty clear idea of what the facts are and I’ve studied to determine pretty much what laws might apply, so I think I know what I’m going to do.”
Please note the use of the pronoun "I" by the subject (Scott Ballard).  This is not what we generally see and is a strong indication that the subject is confident in his decision.  He uses qualifiers "pretty clear idea" and "pretty much" what laws "might" apply, but he does not use the word "we", as in a prosecutorial team. 
There appears to be an imbalance here. 
There is a strong commitment with the pronoun "I" in his statement.  Where one is uncomfortable, there is usually the pronoun "we", as in "we are studying the facts and we will make a decision..." but the pronoun "I" suggests that he has no need to share responsibility.  This is strong.
The qualifiers, however, are weak. 
How can this be?

It may be that the subject, due to his conviction and belief of the facts of this case, stands alone, and must use "I", yet while not wishing to insult his colleagues, allows for qualifiers, such as "pretty clear" and laws that "might" apply.  

It may be that this decision is not popular among others, but because he believes it, and he is in the position of responsibility, he has the courage, no matter what it is, to go forward. 
Commentary:  I believe the call indicates intention and that the distancing language is due to guilt, and blame, as he blames the victim.  He shows more concern about his career than he does, in his wording, about the victim , who lay dying next to him. 
Domestic Violence:  Many, not some, but many perpetrators of domestic violence find a way, linguistically evident, to share blame for their actions by  putting blame upon the victim.  Even in apologies they say things like, "What I did was wrong and I am 100% responsible.  I do wish, however, that she did not...." and so on.  
I do not know what the subject is going to do with the report, in terms of his final decision, but it is rare to see someone take such responsibility via pronoun as he has. 
The author of "Secret Life of Pronouns" concluded that those in high authority in business often drop the pronoun "I" in their emails, and concluded it was the language of leadership. 
I think it is to the contrary.  (I love the book).  
Yes, most in high ranking positions do drop the pronoun "I" in their emails, but the lack of the pronoun "I" does not tell the full story:  the use of the pronoun "we", instead, tells a more complete story. 
"We have made the tough decision to eliminate jobs..."
"I have made the decision to hire more workers..."
The absence of the pronoun "I" does not suggest strength (which many have taken away from the study) but of a reduced ability to take responsibility. 

In this statement, whether we agree with his decision or not, we know it is his.  That he qualified it may suggest a polite nod towards his colleagues, or others who have expected something different from him.  

It is an unenviable position to be in.  Here are some things to consider:

1.  The 911 call shocked the general public.  Even without training, people (and news reporters) recognized the cold, matter of fact language.  Some defended this as "his training", but when it comes to a marriage, and a wife laying bleeding near death, not only is this a stretch, but he is heard using a term of endearment that sounds forced, from which his reply to what she said back to him, suggests that she disdained his use of the term).  

2.  The language of the call showed more concern for his career than her life. 

3.  The report of Domestic Violence.
4.  The denial of victims of Domestic Violence is expected.  Not only is this the 'norm' or expected, but look at Maggie McCollum's situation:  if he loses his job, she is now unable to care for herself.  She as a vested interest.  Many victims of D/V are in terrible predicaments.  
I had a  case in which a military personnel raped and beat his wife.  The military investigated and found her credible.  They privately told her that if she pressed charges, he would face consequences that included her loss of medical coverage.  She had a high needs son with an extreme medical condition.  She was also berated by his subordinates who talked openly of his bravery in combat, and their devotion to him.  She was facing their wives' disapproval of "breaking the code" by speaking out.  
She dropped the charges and refused to cooperate.  Sadly, she paid for this dearly, later. 

Women in D/V face frightening consequences.  In some cases of rage, no piece of paper is going to protect them.  Once the perpetrator has "lost control" (the first 24 hours of her escape), should he also lose his job, reputation, etc, he could become even more dangerous with "nothing to lose" in life. 

Others do not wish to be known as victims because they will inevitably be asked, "Well, why did you stay with him?  You looked so lovey-dovey on Thanksgiving!  You had a birthday party for him recently!" and so on.

The doubts cast upon her especially by mother-in-law and others, is a form of re-victimization.  Remember:  most victims are not controlled by violence, but the threat of violence.  To be physically injured and suffer both physical and psychological pain, and then to have her credibility questioned, leads to far more pain, shame and isolation.  Inevitably, some victims of D/V are blamed even by friends and family. 

This DA is in a no-win situation to some regard.  He must follow justice, yet:

he may not have the victim's support;

he may not have local police support;
he may not have colleagues support;
and so on.  

Therefore, he must have clear evidence and believe he can press a case properly.  He must decide:

Should this man ever carry a firearm again?
Should this man face criminal charges?  Can he prove the charges?
In my work with D/V victims, I have often been at odds with Domestic Violence advocates, until I met Susan Murphy Milano.  Many well meaning advocates help victims fill out affidavits.  In their assistance, they add to the account in an attempt to persuade a judge to grant an order of protection of some form.  In most all cases, it worked out where the judge did grant the order, but in some cases, the "Pinnochia Effect" later came back to bite the victim.  In several of these cases, not only was the order thrown out after it was challenged, but the victim lost custody of her children.  Here is why:  

The advocate wanted to persuade the judge that the perpetrator was so dangerous, that he was a danger to the children.  Judges know that violence is never safe for children, even when aimed at the mother.  In several of these cases where I was directly involved in, the mother had lied, with the help of an advocate, about some of the facts.  When she allowed him to move back in, the judge simply reviewed her order and the affidavit, and then ordered the kids out of the home, citing the mother's lack of protective capacities.  

Lying does not help the cause.  Affidavits should be short and powerful.  There is no need to persuade; just report.  Even without training, judges do sometimes pick up deception and they do not like it.  I once had a case where a judge "red penned" (like my wonderful 8th Grade English teacher from Carle Place Jr. High School who cared about English skills of her students) certain sections and politely allowed the mother to "cross out" a few lines in the affidavit and initial them, with the admonishment, "just write the facts."  Back to the article:  
But Ballard didn’t tip his hand, telling the station it could be a couple of weeks before he announces his decision.
The GBI said Chief McCollom has been cooperative throughout its probe. His wife told investigators she believes her husband didn’t intend to shoot her.

This is not in a quote but was referenced earlier on in the case.  I polled friends and family on this, including law enforcement.  Each said that they would not be able to get through a 911 call without using the words "my wife", "my gun", and their wives' name, but also said that their wife, if actually asleep, would have said "He shot me by accident" without the additional word "believe."  
McCollom was hired by Peachtree City in 2012 as assistant chief. He was promoted last October following a series of favorable performance reviews.
The McColloms recently married each other a second time after reconciling in 2011.


tania cadogan said...

I will be shocked and annoyed if charges aren't laid.
Attempted murder should be the main charge. When you fire a gun at someone, you aren't using it to wound them, you are using it with intent to kill.

Given the location and the resulting paralysis she was lucky not to have died.
AS it is, she will be dependant on help to a degree for the rest of her life.
Killing her would have ended a lot of his problems (no alimony) Domestic violence is all about control and power over another.

Her paralysis leaves her vulnerable and dependant, if she stays with him, he will have all the control over her he desires.
he wouldn't have to physically assult her anymore, he would simply have to withdraw his help, make things difficult for her and she would become compliant.

If he hurts her he can always claim it was accidental whilst he was doing something useful for her or to her.

If she stays, she is still at risk from him, she will be a drain on his time and resources, if he decides to have an affair she is at risk again due to alimony if she divorces him plus her needs will be greater due to paralysis leading to a drain on his finances.
If anything happened to her he could claim suicide or accident( drowned in the bath or fell)

She needs to admit the truth about the violence, she needs to admit there are issues and she doesn't feel safe with him.

She was at risk before, she is at greater risk now when he realises how much of a drain she will be on him.

Lemon said...

I wonder if the DA knows the judge/s the case might go to, and this influences the language used? As a DA, he might be confident in the evidence, himself, his ability etc. but might not be so confident in those who have input in the judicial process/jury pool.

GetThem said...

I took all the references to "I" to mean that maybe he is a friend of the Chief and doesn't care what anyone else thinks because he won't press charges. I hope NOT!!!

Anonymous said...

do you have any statistics on DV by police officers?
I've read a couple of articles online about it being a fairly large number. I read them a few years ago, one was a result of the WA police officer that killed his ex-wife in a parking lot in front of their kids.

Sus said...

The prosecutor is passive about his actions. "I've studied" rather than "I studied." "what the facts are" rather than "what happened."

He uses "so" and "I think I know" to begin his last phrase, making it sensitive.

Anonymous said...

Peter Hyatt said...


I don't have statistics handy but check with DOJ. Empirically, I know it to be high.

Professional athletes may be the highest, however, that I have experience with.


Anonymous said...

Charges will not be laid. Here's why:
1)People want to beleive that the police are there for their protection. He was the cheif. If they lay charges against him, their ability to lead the city will be questioned.
2)They had a troubled marriage and ended it once. She agreed to reenter the relationship. She will be blamed.
3)How dangerous is the area that he has to sleep with the gun? Has there been threats?
4)His concern for his career may have been the reason for remarrying her.For a single man to become police cheif, others would wonder what he does in his spare time.

Police officers are among the top ranking domestic violence abusers. It is for this reason women rarely get help. The best anyone could hope for would be a cause driven hysteria in which the media could continue the abuse as well. Collect funds. Do charity drives. But, for God's sake, do not stand in the way of degradation!

Anonymous said...

You may be right about professional atletes being among the most abusive. Makes sense. Abuse as a challenge. Police officers are among the top in stalking news these days. That's very telling since rarely anyone would catch them or turn them in.

I live in a state that ranks the highest in domestic violence. Although they think they are family oriented, they are far from that image they'd like to project. When people close their eyes, close their ears, and turn their back there is nothing that can be done to turn the situation around. It's hopeless.

I knew my time had finally come to leave the spirally downward hellhole. An omen I suppose.

Sitting in front of the house in which Californa drug dealers were towed away, I noticed the neighbor a cross the street trying to back in his shiny new Mustang. Bam! The side mirror hit the mailbox. Like blackbirds on the roof and other old wives' tales, in my own looking glass I could see someone taking my place. Yippee!

They just don't want those thoughts in their head.

No more critical thinking bumper stickers to gaze upon. No more critical thinking seminars disguising the autrocities these people commit. No more, "Well, there was a 14 year old girl raped by a grown man which destroyed the family and again which destroyed another. They should do something about her." And other family value systems instilled upon the masses.

Someone else can deal with the dag shit. I don't want to replace fence posts because I don't beleive in ghosts. It's costly, labor intensive, and ridiculous. Oddly enough, a police officer was driving back and forth at the time.

Peter Hyatt said...

Perhaps I will run a poll on this...

stop_playing_dumb said...

I'm sorry for the O/T:

Here is the obituary for the death of Wayne Millard, the father of Dellen Millard. Dellen is charged with the murder of three people including Wayne. Dellen wrote this obit and it was published AFTER his call to gather in his father's memory. Wayne's death was considered a suicide until Dellen was charged with the murder of Tim Bosma.

I was hoping for someone to analyze this letter. I can see many strange things like how he refers to his father. Also that his father "feared racists." Does this obit show a strained relationship with his father?

WAYNE C. MILLARD Wayne C. Millard has passed. He is survived by son Dellen Millard. For those who wish to gather in fond memory of Wayne, there will be a reception from 12:00 to 5:00 p.m. on Saturday, December 15, 2012 at Vinsanto Ristorante, 28 Roytec Road, Vaughan, ON. What few words could make comment here... His hope was for a time when cooperation would be the norm and competition was only friendly. He was frugal with himself and generous to others. The only people he feared were racists. He would answer a question with a story. He stepped carefully while advocating carefreeness. He could read and write five languages. He was patient and stubborn. He admired Christ, Gandhi and Lindbergh. He believed animal welfare was a humanitarian effort. He was a good man in a careless world. He was my father. A Master Pilot... Many who knew Wayne Millard, knew him as a pilot. Rightfully so, as he defined himself by the responsibilities of the trade. I now carry his pilot's license in my wallet. It's a good photo. Beside it are noted the type certificates he held. It's a long list from B747s and B757s, to DC3s and L101s, to BH47s and HU500s. For Father piloting wasn't just his job, it was his freedom. A Humanitarian... Wayne supported, organized, and helped fund many missions on behalf of animal welfare. Sponsor a Dog, the Canadian Flora & Fauna Society, Canadian Wildlife Film Productions, the Sea Shepherd Society and the Toronto Humane Society, only to name a few. He saw a future for mankind where we do not pollute our environment or subjugate animal lives to our industry. He was a man of vision. Yet To Be Realized... His last, still unlaunched, animal welfare mission is accepting donations to the 'Elizabeth Glass Animal Welfare Fund', 5 Maple Gate Court, Etobicoke, ON M9C 2K4. He believed we can make a difference in the world. With Wayne in my heart, I believe we must.
- See more at:

elf said...

Hallelujah for district attorneys with courage to press forward on difficult cases!

Curious said...

Peter, have you seen any of the Vegas mother shot during a a possible road rage incident? It's all very hinky, everyone has a different story.

Buckley said...

LAS VEGAS - A newly released police report says the son of Tammy Myers, the Las Vegas woman who was fatally shot in her driveway after what police initially termed a "road rage" incident, told his mother to call police instead of going after the other car - but she refused, telling him to "come with me or I will go myself."

According to the report, Meyers, 44, was in her green Buick with her 15-year-old daughter at about 10:50 p.m. on Thursday, Feb. 12. The family told police the two had been near a neighborhood park practicing driving, where they had an encounter with a silver sedan, which they said sped up beside them and blocked their path.

The report states that the daughter told police a 6-foot tall white man got out of the driver's seat of the silver sedan and said "I'm gonna come back for you and your daughter."

Once home, police say Tammy Meyers told her daughter to go inside and get her older brother, Brandon.


CBS affiliate KLAS-TV
"Brandon said he got dressed, went into his grandmother's bedroom, and took his Beretta 9mm handgun from a dresser drawer," the police report states. He then went outside to where his mother was waiting with her car.
"Brandon said he told his mother to come in the house and call the police, but she told him no come with me or I will go myself," the report states.

What happened next is still unclear, but according to the police report, Tammy Meyers and her son soon returned home and were fired upon by the passenger of a silver sedan. Tammy Meyers was shot in the head and died two days later.

The Meyers' 19-year-old neighbor, Erich Nowsch, has been arrested and is facing charges of murder and attempted murder. Police interviewed two friends of Nowsch, each of whom told slightly different stories, according to the report, but both said Nowsch told them that while he was riding in the passenger seat of a silver Audi, he shot at a green car he perceived as following him. They also said that Nowsch told them he loaded his gun and started shooting after he saw what he thought was a gun in the green car.

The Las Vegas police declined to comment on the victim's apparent decision not to call authorities.

On Thursday, the Meyers family admitted they knew Nowsch prior to the shooting. Robert Meyers, Tammy's husband, said that his wife had mentored the teen.

"We know this boy," Robert Meyers said. "I couldn't tell you this before. He knew where I lived. We knew how bad he was but we didn't know he was this bad."

Nowsch is scheduled to appear in court Monday, Feb. 23, at 7:45 a.m. In a press conference Friday, police said they believe Nowsch is the shooter, but are still looking for a second suspect.

john said...

Amber Alert issued for missing 6-year-old girl

CORPUS CHRISTI - An Amber Alert was issued for a missing girl believed to have been taken from a home according to a Corpus Christi Police press release.

Kloe Rose Donohoo, 6, was last seen at a home on the 2002 block of Yorktown Boulevard early Sunday morning.

Officers said an adult relative noticed around 4:30 a.m. that Donohoo was gone. She then discovered that the suspect, 19-year-old Austin Carlin, and her van were also gone.

The van is a white Dodge Caravan LP 6BZXV.

Anyone with information about the incident or suspect vehicle is encouraged to call 911, police said. Anyone with information also can call Corpus Christi Crime Stoppers at 361-888-8477 or go to

tania cadogan said...

off topic

A former CBS reporter has launched a damning attack on claims Bill O'Reilly made about his on-the-ground reporting during the Falklands War just hours after the Fox News host vehemently defended the allegations.

Eric Engberg, who covered the conflict from Buenos Aires for CBS alongside the veteran broadcaster in 1982, posted a lengthy message on Facebook questioning several of the statements made on the O'Reilly Factor on Friday night.

O'Reilly, 65, blasted the left-leaning publication Mother Jones and called journalist David Corn 'an irresponsible guttersnipe' and a 'liar' operating on 'the bottom rung of journalism in America'.

Engberg however insists O'Reilly behaved unprofessionally and has accused him of lying about being the only reporter on the streets during a riot.

He also claims O'Reilly was ordered out of Argentina by CBS bosses for being a 'disruptive force'.

The 27-year CBS employee said the area was more an 'expense account zone' than 'war zone', as the actual conflict was occurring thousands of miles away.

During a 2009 interview, O'Reilly told a Hamptons TV station he was the only CBS journalist brave enough to cover a protest in Buenos Aires. He said: 'I was out there pretty much by myself because the other CBS news correspondents were hiding in the hotel.'

Engberg slates this as an 'absolute lie', saying the entire crew was out that evening 'exhibiting their usual courage.'

In a 2004 column, O'Reilly said: 'Having survived a combat situation in Argentina during the Falklands war, I know that life-and-death decisions are made in a flash.'

Engberg also claims that during a late-night recap of the Argentina story, CBS bureau Larry Doyle chief told O'Reilly his senior colleague Bob Schieffer would be doing the segment instead.

Allegedly, he exploded, saying: 'I didn't come down here to have my footage used by that old man.'

The next day, he says O'Reilly was sent home.

In reference to the injuries O'Reilly claims his cameraman sustained during a riot in the Argentine capital, Engberg says the only place where it could have occurred was in a relatively 'tame' disturbance with police.

To establish his credentials, in the post Engberg said he could provide some 'eyewitness accounts' for what happened because he was part of the 'rather larger' CBS staff covering the conflict.

Engberg's post read: 'We - meaning the American networks - were all in the same, modern hotel and we never saw any troops, casualties or weapons. It was not a war zone or even close. It was an expense account zone.

'I should have known he was headed for trouble, but I just thought he was a rookie who would learn. Yeah, right.'

He went on to say: 'The reporters, as I remember, were O'Reilly, Chuck Gomez, Charles Krause, Bob Schieffer and myself. Somewhere it has been reported that O'Reilly claimed he was the only CBS News reporter who had the courage to go into the street because the rest of us were hiding in our hotel. If he said such a thing it is an absolute lie.

'Everyone was working in the street that night, the crews exhibiting their usual courage. O'Reilly was the one person who behaved unprofessionally and without regard for the safety of the camera crew he was leading.

'I am fairly certain that most professional journalists would refer to the story I have just related as "routine reporting on a demonstration that got a little nasty."

'O'Reilly, in defending himself yesterday against Corn's Mother Jones piece, said "We were in a combat situation in Buenos Aires." He is misrepresenting the situation he covered, and he is obviously doing so to burnish his credentials as a "war correspondent," which is not the work he was performing during the Falklands war.

tania cadogan said...

In reference to Brian Williams axing by NBC last week, he said: 'I don't think it's as big a lie as Brian Williams told because O'Reilly hasn't falsely claimed to be the target of an enemy attack, but he has displayed a willingness to twist the truth in a way that seeks to invent a battlefield that did not exist. And he ought to be subject to the same scrutiny Williams faced. He also ought to be ashamed of himself.'

In response, Fox News told the Daily Mail Online: 'The O'Reilly Factor invited Eric Engberg to appear on the program this Monday and he refused. The Factor has also contacted CBS News and asked them to release the footage in question. Bill O'Reilly will address Engberg's claims on Mediabuzz with Howard Kurtz tomorrow (Sunday).'

On Friday night, O'Reilly told his 1.7 million viewers he spent an evening 'crawling around my basement in the dust' to find what he claims to be two internal CBS memos that refute Corn's allegations.

And a guest star - Fox News' Geraldo Rivera - likened Corn's investigation to Joseph McCarthy's communist manhunt.

The dispute comes a week after Brian Williams was unceremoniously kicked off the air by NBC for lying about his time in Iraq.

Claiming to be a victim of a politically motivated sting, O'Reilly said on air on Friday: 'Everything I've said about my reportorial career is true.'

He started by taking down his attackers: 'Mother Jones, which has low circulation, is considered by many the bottom rung of journalism in America.

'However, in this internet age, the defamation they put forth gets exposure.

'And so I have to deal with this garbage tonight. I'm sorry.

'Basically David Corn, a liar, says that I exaggerated situations in the Falklands War and Salvadoran War. Here is the truth...'

He went on to explain that he never claimed to be operating from the Falklands, and insists he did witness violent riots with police shooting in Argentina's capital of Buenos Aires in June 1982.

The Mother Jones report centers mainly on O'Reilly's time covering the Falklands War in 1982, when the then 32-year-old reporter was working for CBS.

O'Reilly arrived in Buenos Aires just before the country surrendered the Falkland Islands to British troops leaving the small chain of islands some 1,200 miles south of the Argentinian capital under the control of the United Kingdom.

O'Reilly's wording in several interviews seems to be most at issue. While O'Reilly visited war zones, he includes the Falklands in these general statements - making it seem as if he actually claims to have seen action between British and Argentinian troops.

'You know that I am not easily shocked. I've reported on the ground in active war zones from El Salvador to the Falklands.' he said in his 2001 book The No Spin Zone.

However, during the Falklands War, no American journalists were approved to visit the chain during conflict, something CBS' lead reporter for the conflict, Bob Schieffer, and producer Susan Zirinsky, confirmed to Mother Jones.

They say the CBS team worked out the Buenos Aires bureau, and were put up in a Sheraton hotel more than a thousand miles away from the fighting.

'He said he was in the war zone during the Falkland Island conflicts - the conflict was in the Falkland Islands, it was not in Buenos Aires,' Mother Jones reporter David Corn told On The Media.

'He covered a protest after the war was over in Buenos Aires. I don't think that's a reasonable definition of a combat situation. If you look up 'combat situation' in the dictionary, it's not 'an ugly protest'.'

O'Reilly is now saying that he never claimed to have actually traveled to the Falkland Islands, and that he did no wrong in describing the chaos in Buenos Aires after the Argentinian surrender as a 'war zone'.

tania cadogan said...

'All you have to do is get the video from CBS about what happened the night that they surrendered. The Argentinians, in Buenos Aires - it certainly was a war zone where bullets were being shot, people were going down.

'It was combat of the closest quarters. There's no question about it. I filed two reports it led the [Dan] Rather broadcast video and then I filed later on and I got an internal memo from CBS commending me on my coverage. When bullets are shot it's combat. By soldiers. That's what happened.'

But Mother Jones also questioned his recollections of these riots in Buenos Aires, citing the heart-stopping story O'Reilly told a Hamptons TV station in 2009 about nearly being shot at in the streets.

In the interview, O'Reilly said he and a cameraman got caught up in a stampede when a camera 'went flying'.

'I saved the tape because it was unbelievable tape. But I dragged him off the street because he was bleeding from the ear and had hit his head on the concrete…The sound man is trying to save the camera… And then the army comes running down and the guy points the M-16. And I'm going, 'Periodista, no dispare,' which means, 'Journalist, don't shoot.' And I said, 'Por favor.' Please don't shoot…Then the guy lowered his gun and went away.'

Mother Jones points out that the footage O'Reilly's cameraman captured paints a less dramatic scene, with the most drama focused on a group of protesters banging up the car of a Canadian news crew.

In his book, O'Reilly called the protests 'a major riot' in which 'many were killed' - though other outlets like the New York Times, the Miami Herald and UPI reported no fatalities.

O'Reilly stands by his statement that 'many' were killed in the clashes - though he's not certain how many.

'I have no idea. It was a long time ago. The Argentine government controlled the flow of information, Western reporters were not given access to morgues or hospitals. Anybody who was there can tell you that it was a chaotic mess,' he said.

Mother Jones also called up O'Reilly's reports from El Salvador, where he traveled shortly after being hired as a reporter for CBS in 1981.

O'Reilly traveled to El Salvador in May 1982 to cover a civil war, and taped a segment in a village called Meanguera where the government claimed to have victoriously driven out a rebel group.

In his book, O'Reilly wrote that the village was 'leveled to the ground and fires were smoldering'.

'But even though the carnage was obviously recent, we saw no one live or dead. There was absolutely nobody around who could tell us what happened. I quickly did a stand-up amid the rubble and we got the hell out of there,' he wrote.

However, Mother Jones points out that his CBS segment was much tamer, showing just one or two burned buildings and several people walking around.

'That's false. Look at the footage,' O'Reilly has responded, again saying his video proved his point. 'The village was devastated.'

Read more:

Buckley said...

To me this isn't the same as with Williams; O'Reilly's show is grounded in opinion and slant. MSNBC and Fox are "commentary" stations, not news like we expect from the "big 3" network news broadcasts. CNN is comparatively "sensationalist" but not quite politically slanted like MSNBC and Fox.

Don't we, here, know that when a show constantly declares itself a "no spin zone," we're about to enter a spin zone?

ABC, NBC, and CBS are supposed to be above that, so that's why the Williams and Rather scandals don't pass without consequence.

Buckley said...

But I'm glad you posted the article :)

Megan said...

Another battle of the networks.

Lis said...

Buckley said...
...Don't we, here, know that when a show constantly declares itself a "no spin zone," we're about to enter a spin zone?

Ha ha! Great point, Buckley!

john said...


Chelsea Hoffman
4 hrs ·
Listen and join the discussion. ‪#‎DylanRedwine‬'s father called in at the last 5 minutes of the show and said some pretty interesting things. The comments section is going wild!
Elaine did a wonderful job, as always. We are all behind you, Elaine, in finding justice for Dylan, and we are all behind Dylan, all the way ‪#‎TeamDylan‬.

Peter Hyatt said...

Lis said...
Buckley said...
...Don't we, here, know that when a show constantly declares itself a "no spin zone," we're about to enter a spin zone?

Ha ha! Great point, Buckley!
February 23, 2015 at 12:46 AM

"Islam is a religion of peace."

The unnecessary becomes a necessity. Or, is it the other way around?


john said...
This comment has been removed by the author.
john said...

Hi Peter,

I have sent you the prime example of a reliable denial Vs never in the episode on Dateline. She gives a RD twice and he doesn't. He can't bring himself to issue an RD, but uses the words "never" etc. He was subsequently arrested for the murder. The transcript is in your FB box.

I can post it here if it is easier for you ?

I have also transcribed the 911 call from the same case.


Buckley said...

"Islam is a religion of peace."

Yes, it's a lie of persuasion just as "men are a gender of peace" or "police officers treat all races equally." It doesn't mean we find more truth in the opposite.

We see that domestic violence is a sickness way too rampant in our world, largely perpetrated by men. I wonder what percentage is higher- men who beat their girlfriend/wives or Muslims who commit acts of violence against non-Muslims?

Yet in organized attempts to stop or curb domestic violence, do we target men or domestic abusers? If we did target men, what would be the reaction of men who do not abuse women? Would they be on board to stop domestic violence or would they feel unfairly targeted?

If it's noted that domestic violence and aggressive tactics against minorities are more prevalent in male police officers, and political leaders made comments about officers in general, making all officers look bad, making the entire profession look bad, wouldn't that be worthy of criticism? Shouldn't the language reflect that only *some* of LE is that way and, generally, officers are role models in our society? Wouldn't that have been the prudent thing for DeBlasio to say for the safety of NYC officers and citizens?

I'll admit, I'm not big on crimes being classified as "hate" crimes. While hate is undesirable, it seems Orwellian to make a thought or emotion a crime, as opposed to actually committing an act of violence, or actively preparing to commit one. Is the goal to rid the world of violent Muslims or eradicate an entire religion? The former seems like an appropriate goal for a government, the latter does not. But that's just my opinion.

Anonymous said...

"Islam is a religion of peace."

Which is not to say:

"Islam is a peaceful religion."

Peter Hyatt said...


we need to register you for some sensitivity training

You will learn a lot, including

"There are statistics proving that women commit just as much D/V as men."

When the officer was challenged on the statistics he grew angry, smirked and said, "Yeah, well bring it on."

When asked, "What do you mean, bring it on?" he said,

"The FBI has all these statistics. Next question."

You would have loved it.


Buckley said...

we need to register you for some sensitivity training

Haha! That's what my wife, Melissa, keeps telling me, too.

While we're on statistics, any link beyond to learn more about Sapir's research and numbers? Or should I move on to the next question?

Peter Hyatt said...

He has published very little of his own findings. I understand this since he made his living teaching seminars and watched others come along, learn from him, and teach.

His greatest gift lies in analysis, far more than teaching.

A great place to "dig" into very heavy analysis is "Linguistic Archeology." You don't need to be a fan of the Bible.

It is not easy material, however. It does shoe how difficult good analysis can be.


Buckley said...

Thank you- I am a fan of the Bible. I'll check it out.

I've wanted to share with you that I named my son Hayden after the author of "Those Winter Sundays." When I first visited your site years ago (for the Baby Lisa case), I noticed it was the first thing posted on your blog. One of the many things I appreciate about your perspective.

Peter Hyatt said...


I love that poem.

The work on Genesis is not an easy read; it is a study.

I do wonder, if one day, he will release the volumes of research he has done, especially from the polygraphs in Israel, where much has come from.

His work will give you insight into his genius. Analysis is his forte, far more than teaching.

Anonymous said...

Here's a link that suggests 80% if DV are committed by males:

Not: if I run my mouth long enough to gather some redneck abusers I can change that statistic to be 50/50...and then, on to the pyricc Muslim vs. Christian fight.

Carry on