Selective fact presentation

Mr. Stone opens with the confident assertion that his facts are “undisputed,” yet conveniently omits crucial context that might complicate his narrative. Video from days before his death shows a deranged Pretti striking a federal vehicle before being tackled by officers, hardly the behavior of the “benign traffic monitor” Stone portrays. Similarly, Stone describes a woman being “shoved to the ground without cause” while failing to mention that officers repeatedly ordered people to clear the road during an active enforcement operation.

This selective omission of inconvenient facts serves a predetermined conclusion rather than informing readers. When an attorney, someone trained to understand the weight of evidence and the danger of inflammatory rhetoric, engages in such manipulation, it raises serious questions about intent.

Stone warns against “lack of credibility and integrity” while demonstrating precisely these flaws in his own argument. More concerning, this type of curated outrage risks real-world consequences by misleading citizens into escalating situations they don’t fully understand.

Complete context doesn’t mean defending all police actions, but it does mean presenting facts honestly. Readers deserve better than carefully crafted narratives designed to inflame rather than inform. In matters of public safety and justice, half-truths serve no one’s interests except those seeking to exploit public emotion for personal or political gain.

Grace Xuereb

Burlingame