Originally Posted by roguenuke

Oh, by the way, that comment about the noose incident happening shortly before the "fight" (which is still being used by many of the news sources to describe the attack on Barker), was from AP news. News can be biased and is not always the most reliable source. They aren't omnipotent, they don't know everything. Research should involve as many sources as you can find and then the individual reading it should judge which sources should be considered most reliable. I have researched many sites on this case, and I have found multiple articles and blogs on both sides to be too biased to believe. There are plenty of people out there who are racist, but there are way more people that do not believe the cries of racism simply because it doesn't fit with all the information that is given and keeps coming out. People are not being racist because they don't believe everything they read, even if it's from a news source.

If what Snopes is reporting about the Fair Barn incident is true, then how come Bailey or his family didn't say something before when Sloan was charged? For that matter, how come none of the cops that came out to the incident noticed that Bailey was bleeding if he was hit in the head with multiple beer bottles? I can't believe the cops wouldn't do something to help someone if they were bleeding from the head. If their version is true, then Bailey had a legitimate case to press more charges. Why did it only come out after Bailey got in trouble? This sounds really fishy to me and that is why I choose to consider the version that is supported by police, the DA, and other "racist" sites, as you Citizen would call them, as more reliable.