In the New York Times' May 12 print edition,  reporters Chelsia Tose Marcius and Tea Kvenenadze wrote that a Bronx man was shot and killed by police after he wounded a police officer.  Their account is a good example of anti-cop propaganda.  Here is the lead sentence:

Neighbors said a man fatally shot by the police during an exchange of gunfire Tuesday night [May 9] that also wounded an officer was troubled but seemed unthreatening, living under the supervision of a mental health court after a weapons charge.

The next paragraph provides the police department's account of the incident: 

Rameek Smith, 25, was killed in the Bronx after he fired two shots at officers, police officers said. Officers fired back, shooting Mr., Smith in the head. He died early Wednesday at St. Barnabas Hospital, a Police Department spokesman said.

The third paragraph gives readers a sympathetic account of Mr. Smith from a neighbor:

"He was a young man trying to get back into his daughter's life," Mr. Smith's neighbor Michael Ballard, 47, said Wednesday, adding that he had never seen any problems with Mr. Smith.

Here the letters "OMG" come to the mind of this reader in the face of an obvious effort by reporters and editors at the New York Times to exculpate an individual who possessed and fired a handgun at members of the NYPD.  It would seem that by quoting a neighbor of the deceased, readers are to conclude that he did not present "problems" to the community, notwithstanding his discharge, with wounding effect, of a weapon. 

The ninth paragraph of this "exalt those who fire at police" story said: 

The police said a 9-millimeter Glock handgun that had been stolen last year in Richmond, Va., had been recovered at the scene, but it was not clear why the officers initially zeroed in on Mr. Smith[.]

In the 16th paragraph of the tale gathered by reporters  Marcius and Kvetenadze, for readers to discover, is this information about the deceased:

Mr. Smith was awaiting sentencing next month on a weapons possession charge after he was caught with a handgun in a Brooklyn subway station[.] 

The tale continued, 17th paragraph:

The pandemic delayed his case and when Brooklyn prosecutors asked a judge in October to set $50,000 bail, the judge denied the request and Mr. Smith was not jailed.

The 18th paragraph got to mentioning that Mr. Smith had a history of mental illness.  This paragraph added: "After he pleaded guilty last December to attempted weapons possession, he was placed under the supervision of a mental health court, with his sentence to be determined after the program was completed."  

But in the 19th paragraph, reporters Marcius and Kvetenadze went back to Mr. Smith's neighbors (for irrelevant info): "A neighbor, Maurice Russe said Wednesday that he saw Mr. Smith about half an hour before he was shot and did not notice anything unusual about his behavior."

Two more paragraphs citing Mr. Russe followed:

"He was going out, said he'd be back," said Mr. Russe, 48. "He was all right, he wasn't upset. He was going to send somebody some money."

Mr. Russe said that Mr. Smith had been particularly depressed because he hadn't seen his daughter in a long time, but he added: "He didn't start trouble, He might get into trouble, but he didn't start trouble."  

One cannot help but wonder if Mr. Russe would testify in like manner should the matter of Rameek Smith be the subject of a wrongful death claim against New York City.  After all, before the curious report by the Times of the death of Mr. Rameek Smith ended, a Legal Aid Society statement "called the killing of Mr. Smith 'devastating,' noting that he had complied with the requirements of the court-required mental health program."  Where does compliance with a court-ordered mental health program provide for carrying a weapon and discharging it to wound a police officer?

And then there appeared in this article six paragraphs — paragraphs 10–15 — on the police career of the wounded officer, Dennis Vargas, setting forth civilian complaints against the officer, with two leading to lawsuits against Officer Vargas.  More information on these lawsuits is contained in the Marcius and Kvetendaze anti-cop propaganda tale.  Suffice it to observe that the New York Times seems to have expended at least as much time and effort in dredging up oppo research on the officer allegedly shot in the arm by Rameek Smith as it did looking for irrelevant information from the community to exculpate the deceased.