Wow, Blaze editorial staff. Because you piggybacked off the NY Daily News for the article, you didn’t do any actual journalism. That’s why you use a stock photo of a white guy instead of the actual photo of the young black man – the red flag was, “whose father is a police officer in Jamaica”. Was this an attempt to make it appear as if this individual issue of police misconduct was perpetrated on a Caucasian? Does The Blaze do any actual reporting themselves or have your just turned into a conservative Huffington Post, an aggregate news site? If compared side by side, I don’t even know if there’s an original word in The Blaze’s version. Looks like you just copy/pasted different parts of the News’ real journalism to create the illusion of an original piece of work.
I guess it would never occur to a racist like you that the blaze is using a stock photo, perhaps because it doesn't have the rights and permissions to use a photo of Oliver Wiggins.
You're a whiner without a clue.
This story is a trick. If we had known that the perp was black, then we wouldn't have been so sympathetic to his claim of police abuse.
By showing a white man in the picture, we're lead to believe that the police may have done something wrong.
Jamica is a town in NY
Ianimibus Did you know about Jamaica neighborhood in NY. Maybe you assumed info.too
If you read the article at the NY Daily News, you would see that it was not "copy/pasted" from the DN. Actually looks closer to an article run in The Grio, an online news source. Although Wiggins is a young black man, it doesn't change the story, nor the wrong that was committed by the officers involved.
July 7, 2015 at 10:19am
This article, in comparing reactions to Sharpton and Duke’s respective Presidential runs, completely ignores the different media environment. Instant media – Twitter, Facebook, camera phones, YouTube – changes everything. A David Duke running today would get the same vitriol as Trump; Sharpton would be even more of a gadfly candidate if he ran again – all this is because of the instantaneous nature of the media today.
 July 1, 2015 at 4:11pm
Given that nothing in the recent SCOTUS decision overturned Reynolds v. United States, the lower courts can’t grant him the additional marriage license.
How so? Reynolds v. U.S. was a case regarding religious observation/practice. Since SCOTUS has declared that marriage is a constitutional right whose to say he can't?
 June 26, 2015 at 4:58pm
Yeah, she was there.
[-7] June 26, 2015 at 4:56pm
How is that censoring free speech? You’re still free to make the speech. The newspaper, with it’s own First Amendment rights, is free to determine the content of their newspaper. Do you not believe the newspaper has the right to editorialize and decide the content of its periodical? What you’re proposing is to censor Freedom of the Press.
 June 26, 2015 at 4:54pm
And if the newspaper were somehow required to print these stories, would Freedom of the Press be dead too? No one’s Free Speech rights have been infringed, only a newspaper, using it’s own First Amendment rights to editorialize and decide what they want in their newspaper.
If we follow the logical process provided by the legal suits against Christian businesses, it is improper for the Newspaper agency to limit speech or input of any kind even if they do not agree with the input. The Newspaper is specifically a business regardless of whether it is a news source. If you are going to apply the restrictive rules that state Christian business people may not express their religious views in the business setting then you must universally apply this to all businesses regardless of whether you agree or not. If this is not the case then you have supported tyranny, and a complete lack of equality.
The proper thing to do is to recognize that the original decisions are in error, and resort to previous rulings in relation to business rights. In absence of that decision, then the current rule must be applied completely.
I don't, but tattoos though forbidden under the law was not the reason God was driving out the pagans who were in Canaan at the time. God was driving them (not the Children of Israel) out of the land because of a society that had given itself over to the sinful customs in Leviticus 18. This is not about the laws. This is about God's thoughts on a society given to evil.
 June 25, 2015 at 9:09pm
I don’t think she’s apologizing for choosing to have the baby. I think she’s apologizing because she preaches abstinence-only education and the concept of waiting-for-marriage, something she is clearly incapable of doing herself. And shame on you for advocating, albeit I assume jokingly, for people to commit suicide. A real Christian would never advocate, even in jest, for someone to commit a sin.
 June 24, 2015 at 9:07pm
Fact: different movies have different trailers. I’d imagine that after the 2nd or 3rd trailer attached to a horror movie would be a little different than that of a Pixar movie. Should’ve been able to figure even before the movie started.
Donn aforgit the SUBLIMMINAL-ADVERTIZING.... (O'brownshirt--O'brownshirt... SHARIALAW ... KORAN... ONEWORLDORDER...)
 June 16, 2015 at 3:21pm
He’s also lying in his Facebook post.
 June 13, 2015 at 12:11am
Given that the sentence was 14 words, why change the title of the article but not the content?
 June 12, 2015 at 4:00pm
Ironic, considering it was a plane built for Vietnam Airlines.
 May 23, 2015 at 12:46pm
So only opposite sex couples who plan on reproducing should be able to be married? Your plan would criminalize marriages for any woman over 45 or any man with a vasectomy.
 May 23, 2015 at 12:44pm
Unless you’re requiring civil unions for all couples, opposite sex and same sex, then it smacks of separate but equal.
 May 23, 2015 at 12:42pm
How do you think segregation would poll in the Deep South? Forget private businesses, I’m talking public schools, parks, etc. – do you really think desegregation would’ve passed? If you’re of the belief that this is an issue of equality, should we be putting equality up for a popular vote?
 May 22, 2015 at 5:46pm
What else is there to do but speculate? They only reported it to the police AFTER the statute of limitations expired; and when Josh was confronted by law enforcement, it was by a State Trooper who’s now imprisoned for possession of child pornography. Molesting your sister is not worthy of a “stern talk” that the Duggar’s believed appropriate. It’s worthy of a jail sentence, or at the age of 12-14, juvenile center until 21, with court mandated independent counseling.
 May 22, 2015 at 5:42pm
No, he didn’t admit it – he was caught, then told to pray in the corner. He only resigned from his position because a magazine started to run with the story; who tipped of InTouch remains to be seen.
No, they didn’t seek out law enforcement; they sought a family friend, himself now in prison for possession of child pornography. And he wasn’t charged b/c it wasn’t brought to the attention of the police until after the statue of limitations had run out.
And when you say there’s zero evidence of repeated abuse, all we have to look at other sex offenders. The reason we have sex offender registries is b/c of the high propensity to repeat. Every statistic shows sex offenders, particularly those with young victims, have the highest recidivism rate of any criminal (the lowest is actually murder).
While I care more about the possibility that there are other victims, which all the statistics would say is quite possible, you’re defending a pedophile merely b/c he feigns G-d’s forgiveness.
 May 22, 2015 at 2:48pm
And it’s borderline criminal for the Duggar family to sweep this under the rug and allow him continued contact with young children. A larger question is, was he born with this predilection or was this learned behavior? Is there still an unknown pedophile still in the Duggar House?