I havenโt found a story that doesnโt use Reason as their source. I only found one that tried to contact the police department for comment, but they hadnโt responded.
So we do still only have one truly distinct account of this story, which is the momโs side of the ordeal.
Virality and outrage donโt make a story more accurate.
We donโt know why the woman who encountered the boy on the road called the police. We donโt know what the kid was doing at the time. Was he walking to the side of the road? Was he walking on the road? Did he seem โoffโ in some way that made it so that the woman called the police? Were there previous warnings that that road was dangerous?
Police set up a safety plan for the son, that involved making sure someone always knew where he was. Why was that done? Multiple people in the PD all looked at the case and decided this was the right course of action, why?
Iโll judge once I hear what the police says their motivations were. They could have well stepped over the line here. Or there were legitimate concerns for the childโs safety.
I havenโt seen many references to Reason, and previous to this story I had not heard of them before. Most of the stories I am seeing are sourcing the mother. She seems to be doing a lot of interviews.
I never made claims regarding knowing the full story. Not sure anyone can know the full story until the other parties start talking. I was only responding to the claim that the story should be dismissed because of the source, and claims of what the sources motivations are.
I am supportive of reserving judgement for when more information comes out. I am just not supportive of jumping to the conclusion that because the linked article is from a questionable or biased source that it is automatically dismissed as fabrication and/or propaganda. Especially when there is so many organization who seem to be in defense of the mother.
