Jennifer Barringer Fox News-A new low?

D

DaleA

New member
One of the other gun sites posted this link. I caught some of the Dallas shooting news coverage on CNN and was amazed at how the newscasters felt they had to keep talking even though they had nothing to say.

Fox News took it one step further and got Jennifer Barringer, a ‘forensics expert' to comment on the type of gun the shooter might have been using. You can see the video here:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gYhA-cUjqDE&feature=youtu.be

Why they thought she was an expert is a mystery. Also why no one stepped forward and stopped her is a mystery. It’s Texas for heaven sakes and other news folk, camera persons or someone on the cleaning crew at the studio could certainly have been asked and given a more ‘professional’ opinion than Ms. Barringer. I wonder if Fox News has apologized for this gaffe?
 
Ok, while it was painful (double shot weapon?) but I agree to a certain extent that hunting rifles can be just as dangerous as the civilian AR15. As a matter of fact I suspect we all realize that many hunting rifles are even potentially more dangerous which is exactly why the attacks on the AR15 make no sense at all.
 
I won't disagree with a single thing you said BarryLee but the 'double shot' comment was only one of a plethora of mistakes and gaffes she made...and they went and got her as an 'expert'!!!???
 
We do tend to see these sorts of glaring mistakes more on firearms stories.

The networks would never use anybody but a Doctor for medical 'expert' input, but obviously could
really care less about getting little, if any, correct on a gun story.

But hey, it's called 'The Faux News Channel' for a reason.

JT
 
Yeah, I saw that commentary the other morning on Fox. The part that made me laugh was when one of them talked about "an adapter to make it shoot faster". And putting a scope on a hunting rifle makes it an assault rifle. :rolleyes::confused:
 
Just to be fair and balanced concerning Jennifer Barringer

I DID go to my local grocery store and in Minnesota at least, she is correct, there are magazines galore there. People magazine, Time magazine and Reader’s Digest were all there and were being sold indiscriminately with no checks that I could see to confirm anyone’s age or criminal background. And make no mistake about it, many of these are HIGH CAPACITY magazines with 30 to 40 articles which of course raises the question, just who needs to read that much?

For a more professional critique of Ms Barringer’s comments please see this video vindicating the ‘Double Shot Assault Rifle Clip Scope Adapter From Grocery Store’
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=clxRz-AXv8o
 
For the first time in my life, this compelled me to contact a news organization about one of their "experts". I've seen "experts" that should have been embarrassed to be so called but I've never seen one quite that terrible. That woman may as well have used one of those "fill in the blanks" stories we did in grade school. You know, "proper noun here ", "adjective here", then you read the story. It would have been just as factual.
 
I've got a relative who has been contacted by Fox producers a few times for on air interviews. I think that being blond and looking okay on TV is a big factor in their expertise evaluation.
 
Maybe the speed up adapter is a bump fire stock? I'll run down to my grocery store and get one now! I want the one with the double shot glass! :D

Well, if they're out of stock maybe some string and rubber bands! I've heard bump firing improves accuracy so you must add a scope to your new "assault rifle"! :rolleyes:

(I think everyone knows we're making fun of the forensics "expert", not making light of the tragic attack in Dallas.)
 
With respect to the incident she is addressing, she is an absolute moron!:mad: I apologize to innocent humans with mental problems, but this woman is NOT innocent!
 
Last edited:
Wow, she may actually be worse than senator Kevin de Leon talking about "ghost guns" that can "disperse 30 magazine clip in half a second".
 
I wonder for our lawyers here - there is a standard to be allowed to be an expert in court.
Click to expand...

FWIW, I R 1! ;) I was qualified back in the day to give expert testimony on firearms, and did so on two occasions. The only thing I recall was the prosecutor asking some pretty general questions about firearms, and IIRC, the judge also asked a couple of questions. The prosecutor then moved I be qualified as an expert, the defense made no objection, and the judge ruled me an expert. And that was back before the current Federal Rules of Evidence.

Nowadays, anyone can provide expert testimony on matters where they have special knowledge on a topic not generally known to the public, and which is pertinent to the issue in question in court. The safeguard is that the opposing counsel must be prepared to attack the expert's credentials or offer opposing testimony from another expert.

A few fields have standards for experts, such as the American Board of Forensic Odontology, many of which are sub-organizations of the American Academy of Forensic Sciences. Sadly, there is a good deal of chicanery in many of the forensic specialties. :(
 
Sadly, there is a good deal of chicanery in many of the forensic specialties.
Click to expand...
That's almost inevitable in a system where opposing parties hire and pay their own experts. No matter how cut-and-dried a set of facts might seem, there's always incentive for some "expert" out there to testify to the opposite. In many cases, it would be more sensible to have both parties stipulate to a single, court-appointed expert, or even to more than one, but that would never fly in the US system, which takes "adversarial" to ridiculous levels.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top