Reason Magazine
- reason.com
- reason.tv
- reason.org
- Donate
- Site Search:
Reason on Facebook
Reason on Twitter
Reason on YouTube
Reason RSSGet Reason E-mail Updates!
Manage your Reason e-mail list subscriptionsadvertisements
History Repeats in Chesapeake
WAVY TV has an interview with James Broccoletti, the attorney for Ryan Frederick. The video also contains excerpts from the station's jailhouse interview with Frederick himself. Even those short clips are pretty wrenching. The state supreme court is also apparently appointing a special judge for the trial.
Another local news station notes that Frederick's case bears some resemblance to a case some 36 years ago, in which a police officer was killed after mistakenly breaking into an elderly couple's home. At least in that case, prosecutors had the good sense to not bring charges. At the time, way back in 1972, the Virginian-Pilot ran an editorial that included the following passage:
Faulty information is one thing, a faulty approach is another. Policeman storming into a house of sleeping occupants, who being legally armed is a matter of record, would seem to be an act of desperation. Surely the ordinary householder in an average neighborhood would not expect to be the target of such tactics, whether they meet the law's standards or not. And if storming has been the doctrine for narcotics raids, perhaps subtlety now should be explored.
|2.5.08 @ 9:55AM|#
Its part of the domestic "Shock and Awe" policy....you know....just letting the natives know who's in charge!
Jennifer|2.5.08 @ 10:02AM|#
Why the HELL isn't the national media picking up on this? I just did another Google news search; with the exception of Hit and Run, and some blogs which will only be read by folks who already agree the drug war is bullshit, NOBODY is covering this except the local Virginia stations.
Anarcho Agora|2.5.08 @ 10:04AM|#
Appointed a "special judge"?
Looks like the Commonwealth knows it's sitting weak here. In
calling out their A-Team, the purpose is not so much to get Ryan
Frederick, as it is to keep the state from being got for their
low-rent brigand mafia ways.
|2.5.08 @ 10:08AM|#
How the Smearbund is Destroying Itself
Posted by Thomas DiLorenzo at February 5, 2008 07:20 AM
Young people see through the absurd lies about us coming from Cato,
Reason, Steve Horwitz, and other beltway haters and losers. B.C.
from Usinus College writes: "I'm a college junior and an avid
reader of LRC and Mises.org, and I can safely say that I and all of
the Austrians my age can see through the ridiculous claims of the
'smearbund' and their bizarre claims. We're not buying any of the
beltway lies. You guys don't have to worry."
High schooler John L. writes of the smearbund: "They will destroy
themselves. Ron Paul and LRC are completely obliterating them in
page views [on the internet]. I am a follower of the Mises
Institute and libertarianism in general and am eager to go to
college where I can learn from one of the many scholars like
yourself."
I wonder how many young people are writing Tom Palmer and saying:
"I can't wait to visit Cato and learn from you how to accuse your
intellectual opponents and institutional rivals of being Holocaust
deniers and slavery defenders without being sued for slander." (Not
that a slander lawsuit has been ruled out).
anon.|2.5.08 @ 10:12AM|#
"(Not that a slander lawsuit has been ruled out)"
That wouldn't be very principled of the Mises folks. Rothbard
didn't believe libel or slander were cognizable harms, since a
person's reputation exists only in the minds of others.
|2.5.08 @ 10:13AM|#
Thanks for that, Gabe.
Gotta love paleolibertarians.
People so passionate in their pursuit of liberty and limited
government that they can't be bothered to stop shilling for their
preferred politician to notice that the police are killing people
in their homes.
|2.5.08 @ 10:14AM|#
From a Virginian-Pilot editorial May 26, 1972: "Faulty
information is one thing, a faulty approach is another. Policeman
storming into a house of sleeping occupants, who being legally
armed is a matter of record, would seem to be an act of
desperation. Surely the ordinary householder in an average
neighborhood would not expect to be the target of such tactics,
whether they meet the law's standards or not. And if storming has
been the doctrine for narcotics raids, perhaps subtlety now should
be explored."
Where have all the soldiers gone?
Long time passing
Where have all the soldiers gone?
Long time ago
Where have all the soldiers gone?
Gone to graveyards every one
When will they ever learn?
When will they ever learn?
Teah, there's been some hippie influence in my moral development.
Got a problem with that?
Episiarch|2.5.08 @ 10:14AM|#
You know what we need right now? A new cosmo-paleo bullshit war.
That's exactly what we need.
Some people love to fight so much that they even fight their
friends.
Egosumabbas|2.5.08 @ 10:16AM|#
@Gabe Harris...
In the words of Rodney King, "Can't we all just get along?"
Dude, this is turning more into the Trotskyists vs. the Stalinists
day by day.
And just to throw things into a loop there are pro-war libertarians
who are against Ron Paul AND the Cato Institute.
LibertyPlease|2.5.08 @ 10:17AM|#
I think the war on citizens will ultimately require an in-kind response.
|2.5.08 @ 10:17AM|#
"Why the HELL isn't the national media picking up on
this?"
Because the media hates guns and gun owners. They barely picked up
on the case in Atlanta where the poor old lady was killed. They
only did that because she was black and a female. Had she been
white or a male, see Corey Maye, no one would have cared. The need
to tell the story of racist cops is one of the few things that
trumps the big media's hatred of gun ownership.
The media won't publish this story because they only push stories
that fit into their preconceived narratives. The pre-conceived
narrative about guns is that all guns are evil and only criminals
and racist rednecks own them. These facts do not fit into that
narrative, so they don't get reported. Had the police broken in and
shot an unarmed person, especially a minority, this would be all
over the news. But an armed person, minority or not, pretty much in
most cases, at least in the media's eyes, was asking to get their
head's blown off by merely owning a gun. The way the ignorant
superstitious media looks at it, Frederick was eventually going to
shoot someone, either accidentally or in some drunken brawl because
he owned a gun and all gun owners are going to shoot someone. So it
really doesn't matter that he is being prosecuted unfairly for this
shooting.
|2.5.08 @ 10:18AM|#
Two days after the shooting in 1972, the murder charge was dropped against Lilian Davidson. Turns out the informant got the wrong house. No drugs were found. Officer Hurst's father actually came to the home of Davidson on the day she learned the charges would be dropped and asked her to attend his son's funeral. She did.
Extraordinary.
|2.5.08 @ 10:20AM|#
"Teah, there's been some hippie influence in my moral
development. Got a problem with that?"
I would imagine the good people at the Virginian Pilot back in 72
were the kind of common sense squares that the hippies hated and
also the kind of common sense squares that are apparently a dying
breed much to the loss of the country.
Bingo|2.5.08 @ 10:21AM|#
oh snorg tees girl how i love thee, from your chipmunk cheeks, to your proportionate bosoms, to your lovely silky smooth legs which i would like wrapped around my head. truly, an angel among the trolls and flamewars which inhabit these comment pages.
|2.5.08 @ 10:21AM|#
Had the police broken in and shot an unarmed person,
especially a minority, this would be all over the news.
HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA!!!!
gasp, gasp
HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA!!!!!!!!!
Oh, yeah, especially if it was a black male in his 20s who was
accused of drug dealing. Absolutely, Katie Couric would have led
off with that one.
What color is the sky in your world, John?
Kolohe|2.5.08 @ 10:23AM|#
And if storming has been the doctrine for narcotics raids,
perhaps subtlety now should be explored.
well they sure nipped that one in the bud, didn't they.
Episiarch|2.5.08 @ 10:25AM|#
Maybe--just maybe--the judge will throw this out because it was clear-cut self defense? Since IANAL, I can probably have this crazy fantasy.
|2.5.08 @ 10:26AM|#
Joe,
How else do you explain this not getting any coverage? Is the media
shills to the big drug war? I think not. The media has an agenda
about guns so they don't publish these stories. Same reason the
media never publishes stories about people defending themselves
with a gun. It doesn't fit the narative, so it doesn't get
reported.
"Oh, yeah, especially if it was a black male in his 20s who was
accused of drug dealing. Absolutely, Katie Couric would have led
off with that one."
In my world Amou Dialo was a really big deal. You know the innocent
person the New York whom the cops accidentily shot 41 times because
they mistakenly thought he had a gun? Joe, it is not that you are
stupid, it is that you are such a fanatic that it makes you dumber
than a post sometimes.
|2.5.08 @ 10:28AM|#
Many town councils, etc. have one councilmember who is "in
charge of the police."
Next public meeting, perhaps we should all attend our local one and
during public comments time, ask what the policy is in regards drug
raids: "Do you apprehend the alleged criminal outside his house or
do you advocate storming in at 3am?" Let's not wait for a
Chesapeake tragedy to hit our town before we attempt to change the
stormtrooper mentality.
|2.5.08 @ 10:29AM|#
http://www.nydailynews.com/forums/thread.jspa?threadID=8659&tstart=120&start=20
That one never got any media coverage either Joe. Yeah, cops
shooting an unarmed black man is never covered by the media. Jesus
Joe, do you even listen to yourself sometimes?
|2.5.08 @ 10:30AM|#
In solidarity with Ryan Frederick I'm changing my handle here. I
think the new pseudonym works on many, many levels (plus the domain
name citizennothing.com was available).
Formerly Steve S.
|2.5.08 @ 10:34AM|#
creech,
You might also want to ask your DA what his position on self
defense is. Sadly, DAs are usually elected on being tough on law
and order and never elected based on common sense or commitment to
do justice beyond locking people up. Your DA can do a hell of a lot
more good or damage to your community than your local deadbeat
theiving Congressman. If people thought about DA elections would be
a lot bigger deal than what they are.
|2.5.08 @ 10:34AM|#
that it makes you dumber than a post sometimes.
Dumber than a post by who? Please qualify your statement.
Tym|2.5.08 @ 10:35AM|#
oh snorg tees girl how i love thee, from your chipmunk
cheeks, ...
You may enjoy these snorg girls too (safe for work)
http://www.snorgtees.com/withashirtlikethis-p-412.html
http://www.snorgtees.com/withashirtlikethis-p-412.html
|2.5.08 @ 10:35AM|#
For the same reason every other botched police raid doesn't get
any coverage, John: because it's the ordinary workings of the drug
war.
We had an unarmed elderly black man handcuffed in his apartment die
of a heart attack when the cops raided the wrong house in Boston in
the 1990s, John. Remember that story? No? You know why, John?
Because it was just a local story.
Is the media shills to the big drug war? I think not. You
mean the MAINSTREAM media? The people who sell advertising space to
the Partnership for a Drug Free America? Um, YES, I do think they
are shills for the drug war. Are you kidding me?
Mr. Diallo was not killed in a drug raid, John. He was not accused
of dealing drugs. BTW, if the media was as devotedly anti-gun as
you claim, and as thoroughly disinterested in the drug war as you
claim, than the mistaken shooting of a guy suspected of having a
gun would have received LESS media attention than the mistaken
shooting of a guy suspected of having drugs, not a great deal more.
A little rational thought, please.
You aren't making any sense, because your first, last, and only
response to every question is "How are the media persecuting people
like me today?" and leads you to write dumbass things like
this.
|2.5.08 @ 10:39AM|#
Still looking for those national stories about black men shot in
their homes during drug raids, John?
Good. Maybe it will keep you busy all day.
Other Matt|2.5.08 @ 10:39AM|#
What color is the sky in your world, John?
Now joe, you presumptuous fuckwit moron, that's just silly. It
would almost sound like you're accusing someone who disagrees with
you of being a racist.
|2.5.08 @ 10:41AM|#
I supppose if you are unfamiliar with the meanings of the terms
"racist," "sky," and "world," then it could sound like I was
accusing someone of racism.
Or if you are a really dishonest hack, still smarting over being
pwned on a previous thread.
One or the other.
|2.5.08 @ 10:42AM|#
Hey, can we lay off joe and go back to kicking some paleo ass? Or is it cosmo ass? I keep forgetting which side I'm on.
|2.5.08 @ 10:43AM|#
I just wanted to paste this again:
Had the police broken in and shot an unarmed person, especially
a minority (in a drug raid), this would be all over the
news.
Remember, if you don't find this likely, it's because you're
crazy.
|2.5.08 @ 10:44AM|#
Jesus Christ, that local news report was fucking horrible. Just
run the interview with the attorney. instead they ran this whole
narrative that was so badly botched you couldn't tell what the
basic facts of the case were.
Usually when you see bad local news, you just shrug or laugh. But
this is something where an informed public could make a
difference.
Journalistic malpractice: it's Obnoxious, ridiculous,
dangerous.
Gen|2.5.08 @ 10:44AM|#
Ryans Defense Fund Page
http://www.myspace.com/ryan_frederick
Is the page that is currently being setup for his defense fund and
to get the word out about this case. You can also leave your
comments and thoughts on there as well.
|2.5.08 @ 10:44AM|#
"BTW, if the media was as devotedly anti-gun as you claim, and
as thoroughly disinterested in the drug war as you claim, than the
mistaken shooting of a guy suspected of having a gun would have
received LESS media attention than the mistaken shooting of a guy
suspected of having drugs, not a great deal more. A little rational
thought, please."
In Diallo it didn't matter. What mattered was a black person was
killed. That always trumps other agendas. Further, you story from
the 1990s, was a local story because the 24 hour news cycle and
making every local story into a national one hadn't quite caught on
yet. Further, the guy died handcuffed, the story had nothing to do
guns one way or another.
Run a Google search for media bias on guns and you will see any
number of studies showing the media is systematically biased
against guns and gun ownership. They flat refuse to publish stories
of people defending themselves and preventing crimes. It doesn't
fit the narrative.
Why do you feel the need to defend the media? They are generally
ill informed economically ignorant ideologues who have dogmatic
views on certain issues, guns being one of them. For the record, I
don't even own a gun right. How are media superstitions about guns
oppressing me?
|2.5.08 @ 10:48AM|#
Hey, John. Apparently I'm an "ill informed economically ignorant
ideologue." But I own a gun! Several, in fact!! And I know many
more just like me.
But I guess that doesn't fit the narrative.
|2.5.08 @ 10:48AM|#
"Had the police broken in and shot an unarmed person, especially
a minority (in a drug raid), this would be all over the
news."
The Lima Ohio case has been picked up by ABC News and all of the
wire services. I don't believe the Frederick case has. What is the
difference?
|2.5.08 @ 10:50AM|#
"Hey, John. Apparently I'm an "ill informed economically
ignorant ideologue." But I own a gun! Several, in fact!! And I know
many more just like me.
But I guess that doesn't fit the narrative."
1. Are you you a working journalist?
2. Do you work for a national outlet like the major networks, cable
news networks or national paper, like the WALPO< NYT or
WSJ?
If the answer to both of those questions is not yes, then you are
not covered by the statement.
highnumber|2.5.08 @ 10:50AM|#
What mattered was a black person was killed. That always
trumps other agendas.
This must be Revisionist Black History Month.
Other Matt|2.5.08 @ 10:50AM|#
I supppose if you are unfamiliar with the meanings of the
terms "racist," "sky," and "world," then it could sound like I was
accusing someone of racism.
Oh, ok, now I understand, you define things to fit your worldview,
and anyone who doesn't share it is automatically wrong? So, you are
accusing someone of violating YOUR definition of racism. So
sorry.
Or if you are a really dishonest hack, still smarting over
being pwned on a previous thread.
Pwned? Now we're defining words too? I'm sure there was some pithy
neat little word there with all the value of a brown stain on three
day old underwear.
You're an asshole who lacks substance in your arguments, joe,
because you're operating off of preconcieved notions which are
flawed, but you consider "bedrock." Further, you have the
dismissive arrogance to assume that we're all supposed to be
subject to your definitions. It colors all you say, has nothing to
do with your previous commentary. I just think it's funny you're
operating in such a clearly ignorant fashion as to accuse others of
the very sins you're obviously subject to.
|2.5.08 @ 10:51AM|#
OK, so even though black men shot by the police when mistakenly
believed to have guns received a great deal more press than black
men shot by police when mistakenly believed to deal drugs, that
really shows that the media are suppressing stories about people
shot because of supposed gun posession, and hyping stories about
people shot because of supposed drug posession.
Sure, that makes perfect sense. Only a blind partisan could
possibly think otherwise.
Somebody cut John down from his own petard. He's starting to
smell.
Why do you feel the need to defend the media? So now
recognizing an actual media bias instead of an imaginary one is
"defending the media." They must teach you that in the same school
where you learn that the shooting of black males suspected of drug
dealing during police raids receives wall-to-wall media
coverage.
|2.5.08 @ 10:52AM|#
I haven't the foggiest idea what Other Matt is talking about, but damn did I piss him off.
|2.5.08 @ 10:54AM|#
Ryan certainly has my support. It would be nice to create a small "moneybomb" to support his defense.
|2.5.08 @ 10:55AM|#
I just ran a Google search for Ryan Frederick and police shooting and I can't find one place where a major network or wire services has published this case. Nothing outside of blogs and the local newspapers. Why does ABC, Britbart, UPS, AP and the like publish the Lima, Ohio case, yet not this one? My explanation is that this is a case involving self defense and guns and the national media will not touch such cases unless they have to.
|2.5.08 @ 10:56AM|#
The Lima Ohio case has been picked up by ABC News and all of
the wire services. I don't believe the Frederick case has. What is
the difference?
An additional week of news coverage.
Episiarch|2.5.08 @ 10:56AM|#
You're an asshole who lacks substance in your arguments,
joe, because you're operating off of preconcieved notions which are
flawed, but you consider "bedrock." Further, you have the
dismissive arrogance to assume that we're all supposed to be
subject to your definitions. It colors all you say, has nothing to
do with your previous commentary. I just think it's funny you're
operating in such a clearly ignorant fashion as to accuse others of
the very sins you're obviously subject to.
Matt, you are failing to understand that this is what makes joe
fun.
|2.5.08 @ 10:56AM|#
Joe,
Lima Ohio is getting media coverage. A lot more than the Ryan
Frederick case. Is that just an accident?
|2.5.08 @ 10:57AM|#
"An additional week of news coverage."
Yeah because Ryan Frederick is going to be all over the wires with
positive coverage next week. Can you even see the straws you are
grasping at Joe?
|2.5.08 @ 10:59AM|#
I'm just going to paste Johns comment again.
Had the police broken in and shot an unarmed person (in a drug
raid), especially a minority, this would be all over the
news.
Yes, John, we are going to see more and more media coverge of the
Fredrick case, because a police officer was shot.
|2.5.08 @ 11:00AM|#
You know, after reading all these stories about cops breaking
into peoples homes in the dead of night and opening fire, I have to
wonder if we shouldn't just start buying better doors? What's a
door that can withstand four or five cops smacking it with a
battering ram cost, anyhow?
-jcr
|2.5.08 @ 11:01AM|#
John.
1) Yes.
2) No.
Thank you for lifting your fatwa.
Those who think the MSM are conducting some kind of grand
conspiracy or thought-out anti-something campaign are ill-informed.
Speaking from my long experience in the belly of the beast (a beast
smaller than, say, the WSJ, but one fully capable of devouring baby
kittens whole) members of the "media" are, in general, too lazy,
too ill-informed, too venal and, in their own way, too diverse to
pull off any kind of all-channels black-ops campaign. Sort of like
the government.
Remember, most of us went to j-school because our only other option
was teachers' college, and although we love the children, we really
hate kids.
shecky|2.5.08 @ 11:02AM|#
Thanks, Jennifer, for getting John started on his liberal media conspiracy rant.
|2.5.08 @ 11:02AM|#
"What's a door that can withstand four or five cops smacking it
with a battering ram cost, anyhow?"
Nice idea but they will just bring in tanks if doors got
tougher.
http://www.lascointl.com/vehicles/tactical.htm
robc|2.5.08 @ 11:03AM|#
JCR,
Im thinking a door that comes with exploding nails that shoot out
when battered may be the answer.
Also a sign that says, "If you knock politely, you get to live."
You know, as a warning, so it isnt a surprise booby trap.
|2.5.08 @ 11:05AM|#
re: to paleo-cosmo bs war
This is a legit worry. Infighting amongst those who do legitimately
want more individual freedom is pretty unproductive. I'lls top
after this. I just can't believe these cosmos would say that anyone
who supports mises,rockwell is racist ...it absurd....and it is the
definition of a "smear". I am positive that many supporters of
Reason and CATO really want more freedom. Please be more thoughtful
in the future before conducting organized smear campaigns. Real
liberteraians care more about fighting the collectivist than using
politically correct speech code rules to attack those in the
freedom movement.
Balko is clearly emotionally "real" in his passionate attacks on
the police state. I'm a fan. However, Michael Young is a
propagandist for the military industrial complex and no friend of
peace or liberty. It sickens me to see that some libertarians are
supporting him.
|2.5.08 @ 11:05AM|#
robc, sorry - I haven't pushed through any Frederick stories, although back in the day I certainly would have considered it. These days I'm living the good life in Features.
|2.5.08 @ 11:06AM|#
Can you even see the straws you are grasping at
Joe?
Oh, I see a lot of straw-grasping.
I see you claiming that the media is passionate about covering the
shootings of black people by police during drug raids, despite the
fact that Radley Balko has given us about a dozen such stories, and
they never get covered.
I see you claiming that the Diallo shooting demonstrates the media
suppression of stories about people shot by police while armed or
thought to be armed, despite the fact that it was a case of a black
man shot by police who they thought was armed, and was a major
national story.
And I see you seizing on the one story of a drug raid gone bad
that, finally, thankfully, got some media attention in order to
pretend that such stories are commonly showered with media
attention.
Lie down, John. You're dead. You're initial argument was so absurd,
you never had a chance.
The media is guaranteed to shower coverage on stories about drug
raids that result in shootings of people in the suspects' houses?
Are you fucking crazy? The complete absence of attention to these
shootings has been a recurring theme ever since Radely Balko
starting posting here!
|2.5.08 @ 11:06AM|#
Contrast these drug raids by SWAT teams with this story
from New Orleans.
A 24-year-old female tries to take a rape suspect into custody
alone. Tragic loss of an officer who by all reports had a
promising career ahead of her.
Seems to be a serious imbalance in police procedure working
here.
Lone officer attempts to arrest violent suspect without calling for
more manpower (note I didn't say firepower). She was probably
following policy, too.
But a kid with some pot, and an outfit with the firepower of a
small country shows up. Real smart.
Other Matt|2.5.08 @ 11:06AM|#
I haven't the foggiest idea what Other Matt is talking
about, but damn did I piss him off.
Yes, let's redefine the world to delete you calling me a racist
too. It does piss me off when you, with no basis whatsoever,
fabricate slanderous statements about me and run away from them
when confronted. When I ask what basis you have, you cite the
absence of commentary by me as proof. So, you create a definition
in your brain, slander others based on that definition, and have no
substance but arrogant twit dismissive comments such as being
"silly.". That is upsetting to me, but I figure since your mental
capacity is so limited I'll refresh your memory.
Are we clear now, fucktwit?
Now, here, today, you go on calling other people racist where
clearly the only person suffering from that particular mental
disfunction is you, as you're calling people here racist simply
because they disagree with you that when a black person is violated
by police it gets more press coverage. To use your term, that's
"just silly". You have the racist audacity to assume that black
people are somewhat more worthy of press coverage than white
people, I guess. When others call you on that, you backhandedly
slander them and accuse them of racism.
Yes, I get pissed when presumptuous little morons like you slander
me. I admit that. I also think it's hilarious you're such an idiot
you don't even see it in yourself. I'm just pointing it out here
though.
|2.5.08 @ 11:06AM|#
Citizen nothing,
I don't think it is a grand conspiracy, it is just group think. How
many in the media own guns or take an interest in self defense
issues? Damn few. Only so much news can go on the wire. Editors
have to choose what gets published and what doesn't. If you are not
concerned with these issues or outright hostile towards them, you
are not going to pick up the story. Why does no one outside of a
few blog readers know anything about Corey Maye? That is a great
story. Black man railroaded by racist redneck cops. The answer is
that no one cares about Corey Maye in the media and their sense of
justice and fairness really isn't that offended by it because they
really don't think gun owners have much of a right to complain if
they are prosecuted for shooting someone who enters their house. I
don't see any other plausible explanation for the lack of coverage
for that case. It certainly isn't because the major media has any
affinity for small town cops in Mississippi.
|2.5.08 @ 11:09AM|#
No, Other Matt, we're still not clear.
What the holy hell are you babbling about?
And where did I call somebody racist?
You are unhinged. Go away.
|2.5.08 @ 11:09AM|#
"The media is guaranteed to shower coverage on stories about
drug raids that result in shootings of people in the suspects'
houses? Are you fucking crazy? The complete absence of attention to
these shootings has been a recurring theme ever since Radely Balko
starting posting here!"
Complete absence? So I just imagined all of the wire stories and
ABC news coverage on Lima, Ohio? What about all of the coverage of
the woman killed in Atlanta last year? That hit all of the networks
and the wires. There is not a complete absence.
robc|2.5.08 @ 11:10AM|#
These days I'm living the good life in Features.
So?
On that issue, how does AP feed stuff work. If your paper gets AP
wire stories, can you write a story and push it up for other AP
papers to grab?
|2.5.08 @ 11:12AM|#
John can't come up with any plausible explaination for why the
national media hasn't picked up a story about a black guy who shot
a cop when they raided his home, other than anti-gun
groupthink.
Seriously. Is it because the media routinely ignores people killed
by the police as part of the drug war? Nope, that can't be it,
because we all know how incredibly fired-up the media is to report
those stories.
LibertyPlease|2.5.08 @ 11:12AM|#
Other Matt|2.5.08 @ 11:14AM|#
John can't come up with any plausible explaination for why
the national media hasn't picked up a story about a black guy who
shot a cop when they raided his home, other than anti-gun
groupthink.
Ok, joe, enlighten us, why do YOU think it is? Not that you'd call
anyone racist, nope, just infer it a bit.
They don't cover it for the same reason they don't cover white
people, you moron, it's not about color it's about state power.
|2.5.08 @ 11:14AM|#
So I just imagined all of the wire stories and ABC news
coverage on Lima, Ohio?
No, John, you found one that is getting a minor amount of media
attention.
Far, far less than the Amdou Diallo shooting, though.
So, once again, the story that involved the police carrying out a
drug war got far, far less attention than the story that involved
the police thinking a guy had a gone.
John, your petard is ready. Right this way.
|2.5.08 @ 11:16AM|#
Other Matt,
And where did I call somebody racist?
You're funny.
And you're not answering the question.
Ok, joe, enlighten us, why do YOU think it is? Because the
media doesn't pay attention to the casualties of the drug war. This
is about the sixth time I've written this now. I don't need you to
tell me "it's about state power," that's what I'VE been saying, you
dimwit. Please, learn to read.
BTW, you don't know what the word "infer" means.
|2.5.08 @ 11:17AM|#
Winning an argument on the internet is like winning a gold medal
in the Special Olympics.
You may be a winner, but you're still a retard.
|2.5.08 @ 11:18AM|#
John, yes, I think there is a lot of "group-think" going on. But
I also believe that most editors (who, remember, represent the
Peter Principle as well as any management group) legitimately think
they're choosing stories based on what their readers will want to
read. If they thought that covering one of these cases would boost
circulation, they'd be on it. And believe me, circulation needs a
boost.
I happen to think that poor story selection is playing a role in
circulation decline. However, I am but a small (gun-owning,
libertarian) cog in the great machine.
|2.5.08 @ 11:18AM|#
"Seriously. Is it because the media routinely ignores people
killed by the police as part of the drug war? Nope, that can't be
it, because we all know how incredibly fired-up the media is to
report those stories."
Seriously, you think the media is somehow in the pocket of the big
drug war? If that is the case, why did the Atlanta case get so much
press last year? If what you are saying is true, that story would
have been a local story and no more, yet it wasn't. Explain that
Joe, because that story made every major news cast and all of the
major cable news networks. Further, there is no other evidence that
the media ignores the drug war. It certainly talks a lot about
sentencing disparity and the number of people in prison. Whereas,
the media routinely ignores other gun stories, like when people
stop crimes from being committed with guns. The media will
endlessly hype fake statistics put out by interest groups like the
Brady Campaign. The major media also fawned over the now infamous
"Arming of America" book, which we now know is completely false. I
can point to any number of other instances where the media is
obviously biased against guns and any number of instances where the
media has pointed out rightly the excess of the drug war. Yet, you
think their is some conspiracy to cover up deaths from the drug war
and no bias against guns? Yeah right.
|2.5.08 @ 11:19AM|#
OK, is there anybody - anyone at all - reading this who thinks
John is correct, and the media can be counted on to pick up stories
about people, especially black people, shot by police during drug
raids.
Anybody? Other Matt?
John, what about you? Are you still going to claim that ignoring
one such story is so out of place that you need to put forward a
non-drug-war-related theory to explain why it isn't leading the
news, or can we just say that you let your fingers get ahead of you
for a bit?
|2.5.08 @ 11:23AM|#
Seriously, you think the media is somehow in the pocket of
the big drug war? Yes.
If that is the case, why did the Atlanta case get so much press
last year?? It didnt. It got a fairly small amount of
attention. Had that woman been male or 28, it never would have hit
the papers. It takes something a great deal more attention grabbing
than "suspect in drug raid shot by police" to make the news, like a
baby in the dead person's arms or a 90-year-old lady to make the
story newsworthy.
Further, there is no other evidence that the media ignores the
drug war. HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA!!!
BTW, I haven't claimed anywhere that "there is no bias against
guns" in the media. I claimed that this does not explain low-level
of attention given to these stories.
|2.5.08 @ 11:25AM|#
Citizen Nothing,
I think the Maye case is very interesting. Compare the Maye case to
the Jena 6. In terms of injustice, regardless of what you think
about Jena, going to death row is getting screwed a lot worse than
any of the Jena 6. To me, forgetting your view of the case, the
Maye case is one of those really interesting stories that would
make great copy or time on one of the major news magazines. It is a
hell of a lot more compelling and interesting than high school
fight in Louisiana. Yet, Jenna 6 is all over everything and Maye
gets no coverage.
Part of that is clearly the failure of so called black leaders like
Jackson and Sharpton who ought to be using their bully pulpits in
Maye's defense and are not. But also, I think maybe Jackson and
Sharpton are not stupid and understand what kinds of cases the
media likes to hype and what kinds they don't and choose their
outrage accordingly. Corey Maye and his case of self defense just
doesn't appeal to the dominant media narrative and preconceived
notion that gun ownership and self defense is bad. To me that is a
real failure on the media's part. I think you are right in that
that contributes to the decline in readership. Editors assume
everyone is like them and has the same interests and biases as
them.
|2.5.08 @ 11:26AM|#
Just so there's no confusion, this is John's thesis:
John | February 5, 2008, 10:17am | #
"Why the HELL isn't the national media picking up on this?"
Because the media hates guns and gun owners.
The reason stories about people confronting police with guns during
drug raids don't make the national news has nothing to do with
drug-war casualties being normalized, but is solely because of
anti-gun bias.
Other Matt|2.5.08 @ 11:26AM|#
OK, is there anybody - anyone at all - reading this who
thinks John is correct, and the media can be counted on to pick up
stories about people, especially black people, shot by police
during drug raids.
Anybody? Other Matt?
No, they cannot be counted on. This is because of a number of
reasons, most notably that they tend to have a universal "guns are
bad" reaction, so anyone who uses one is automatically bad, and
second they tend to be pro establishment when it comes to law
enforcement. In addition, they are hesitant to have any story which
would indicate that the approach of the police to use SWAT teams,
in lieu of what used to be regular police tactics, is wrong. I
don't know why this is. I think they want to be viewed as
supporting the "war on drugs", so I disagree with John's
position.
Then again, I'm an unhinged racist by your measure, so pay no
attention to me.
Other Matt|2.5.08 @ 11:31AM|#
Part of that is clearly the failure of so called black
leaders like Jackson and Sharpton who ought to be using their bully
pulpits in Maye's defense and are not.
They aren't, because they're about race. However, they are not
"racist" by joe's measure, though I'm pretty well convinced that if
someone made a similar case for only white defendants, joe would
flip quicker than Romney at a fundraiser.
But, see my previous disclaimer on being an unhinged racist when it
comes to joe, who somehow as assumed the mantle of the one who gets
to define terms around here in his small mind.
|2.5.08 @ 11:31AM|#
"Seriously, you think the media is somehow in the pocket of the
big drug war? Yes."
Why would they be in the pocket of the big drug war and then so
willing to go after the police in every other area? I find it
difficult to believe that your average journalist, who would love
to get a scoop on police brutality or corruption, somehow backs off
of drug war cases out of some loyalty to the drug war. I don't see
any evidence of it What is so special about the drug war? Why would
a journalist be outraged over Amu Diallo when he was shot
accidentally but then somehow not care if he had been killed in a
botched drug raid. You are either a shill for the police or you are
not. I don't see any reason why the media who has repeatedly shown
a willingness to go after cops in every other context would somehow
back off when it comes to the drug war. That makes no sense. What
does make sense is that they back off on a lot of these drugs cases
like Frederick and Corey Maye because they involve guns and self
defense, two areas the media as a group don't agree with.
|2.5.08 @ 11:32AM|#
And wouldn't an "anti-gun" media be MORE inclined to report such
stories, to show what terrible things happen when homeowners keep
guns to defend themselves?
None of this makes any sense! Drug war casualties don't get much
media coverage because they are drug war casualties. When we find
one that DOES, that is the exception, and it's worth asking what
makes that case different. An old lady, a babe in arms.
When a case of someone getting killed in a botched drug raid
doesn't get coverage, that's normal. That's what almost always
happens.
robc|2.5.08 @ 11:33AM|#
OK, is there anybody - anyone at all - reading this who
thinks John is correct, and the media can be counted on to pick up
stories about people, especially black people, shot by police
during drug raids.
On a local level, EVERY time a black is shot by the Louisville
police (including drug raids) the Rev. Louis Coleman and
Christopher 2X make sure it makes all the papers and local TV. So,
based solely on my local paper/tv, the answer is YES.
|2.5.08 @ 11:34AM|#
Why would they be in the pocket of the big drug war and then
so willing to go after the police in every other area?
Wow.
Yup, you know those reporters, ferociously going after the police,
unless there is drug dealing involved.
Um, WHAT?!?
|2.5.08 @ 11:35AM|#
robc,
We're not talking about local stories. All of these cases make the
local papers.
The question "WHY ISN'T THE MEDIA PICKING UP THESE STORIES?" was
about the national media. John's examples are about what stories
did, and did not, get coverage in the national media.
robc|2.5.08 @ 11:36AM|#
in my last post I screwed up my wikipedia link for Chris 2X. Basically him and Coleman are our local versions of Jesse and Al.
|2.5.08 @ 11:37AM|#
"Yup, you know those reporters, ferociously going after the
police, unless there is drug dealing involved.
Um, WHAT?!?"
That seems to be what you are saying Joe. You are saying the media
doesn't publish cases where people die as a result of the drug war.
I am saying that the media seems to have no problem exposing bad
police behavior in other areas, such as the Diallo case. What is
your explanation for them not being willing to publish police
misconduct in the drug war? My explanation is guns. What is
yours.
robc|2.5.08 @ 11:39AM|#
joe,
Your post at 11:19 says media, not national media.
Also, your post at 11:26 misinterprets John's thesis. He never said
"solely".
|2.5.08 @ 11:40AM|#
Reporters accept the official police version of most events because that is the path of least resistance.
|2.5.08 @ 11:40AM|#
What is your explanation for them not being willing to
publish police misconduct in the drug war? The drug war, and a
pro-police position in general. How many times would you like me to
write this?
My explanation is guns. Which makes no sense whatsoever,
as the one example you gave - Diallo - demonstrates exactly the
opposite. Nor you have shown that similar stories get less coverage
when the homeowner uses a gun. You've cited two stories that got
national coverage - Atlanta, where the old lady used a gun, and
Lima, where there was no gun.
You really love this theory, but it doesn't make any sense, and
evidence is against you.
|2.5.08 @ 11:40AM|#
Lima Ohio is getting media coverage. A lot more than the
Ryan Frederick case. Is that just an accident?
Actually, I would tend to believe the answer is yes.
Given the herd mentality in most newsrooms, they tend to pick up
whatever is on top of that morning's pile. Whatever is on top is to
some degree a random thing.
|2.5.08 @ 11:42AM|#
robc,
Your post at 11:19 says media, not national media.
Well then, I'm glad I cleared that up for you. Now that that's out
of the way, do you agree with John that the killing of people in
drug raids usually gets major media attention, and that those that
do not are unusual?
|2.5.08 @ 11:45AM|#
"The drug war, and a pro-police position in general"
If they are so pro police, then how do you explain the Dialo case?
The case involving the anal rape with the plunger in NYC? The
coverage of the Rodney King case. If the media were really pro
police, they would have covered these stories up or refused to
publish them nationally. Certainly, a garden variety case of police
brutality would never become national news. But they routinely do.
I don't see how you can say the national media is pro police. The
one exception seems to be cases like Maye's and Frederick's where
people defend themselves against police home invasion. Hmm why
could that be?
|2.5.08 @ 11:51AM|#
If they are so pro police, then how do you explain the Dialo
case? The case involving the anal rape with the plunger in NYC? The
coverage of the Rodney King case.
Because those cases were so outrageous that they overcame their
general pro-government stance. Argument from anecdote is especially
weak when you go out of your way to select the most extreme
anecdotes to stand in for the general case.
Certainly, a garden variety case of police brutality would
never become national news. Just as a garden-variety drug raid
shooting case doesn't become national news. It takes something
particularly exceptonal to make it so, such as a dead grandmother,
a babe in arms, or a dead cop.
The one exception seems to be cases like Maye's and Frederick's
where people defend themselves against police home
invasion.
You have cited two cases that have made national news - Lima and
Atlanta - and one of the two involved someone defending their home
with a gun. So, no, those that do not make the news are 1) not the
exception and 2) significantly less likely (not more) to involve a
homeowner using a gun, since far less than half of such raids
involve people pulling a gun on the police.
Stay down, John! Stay down! Let the ref count you out. Your own
evidence keeps proving my point!
|2.5.08 @ 11:53AM|#
John, you forgot that the old lady pulled a gun on the police in
the Atlanta case, didn't you?
Two cases that have gotten national attention, one that involved a
homeowner with a gun and one that didn't.
The vast majority of these botched raids - as the map Radely
updates shows - don't involve homeowners pulling guns, but half the
cases that make the national news do.
The theory that cases where a homeowner pulls a gun are LESS likely
to get media attention is contradicted by the facts.
|2.5.08 @ 11:55AM|#
First, you say the Atlanta case wasn't covered. I say it was and
only because it was a minority and an old woman. Second, the Lima
case did not involve guns and is getting national coverage unlike
Maye and Frederick.
You pretty much gave away the argument above when you admitted the
media is biased against guns. That was pretty much game set and
match Joe. Everything since has been you making equivications. When
the Frederick case gets picked up by the wires like the Lima case,
you might have a point. But it won't, so you won't.
|2.5.08 @ 11:58AM|#
Uh, no, I said the Atlanta case WAS covered, genius.
Once again, there are two data points of cases that got national
coverage, and one of them was about a woman who pulled a gun.
THAT'S game set match right there, and on your own evidence.
Tell the truth, you DID forget the old lady in Atlanta shot at the
police, didn't you?
You pretty much gave away the argument above when you admitted
the media is biased against guns.
John, you should have taken a logic class in college. Then you
would realize that "X exists, therefore X caused Y" is a
fallacy.
robc|2.5.08 @ 12:00PM|#
joe,
do you agree with John that the killing of people in drug raids
usually gets major media attention, and that those that do not are
unusual?
I dont agree with John, but what you wrote is NOTHING like John's
position. So, I neither agree with your strawman nor John's real
position. I think R C Dean hit the nail on the head.
However, when they arent being lazy, I think the national media
would be more likely to cover a black person shot by police in a
drug raid gone awry (gun defense or not) than a self-defense
shooting of the police by a white person. However they are much,
much, much more likely to cover a pretty white girl gone
missing.
|2.5.08 @ 12:00PM|#
It's over, John. You claimed that anti-gun bias explains why
drug-war-shooting cases don't get major media attention because
they involve homeowners defending themselves with guns.
It has been proven 1) most drug war shooting cases that don't get
picked up by the media don't involve homeowners defending
themselves with guns and 2) that the cases that do get picked up
are MORE likely than average to get picked up by the national
media.
It's over, John. Just stop posting.
robc|2.5.08 @ 12:02PM|#
joe,
I said the Atlanta case WAS covered
You also said:
The complete absence of attention to these shootings
Way to take both sides.
|2.5.08 @ 12:02PM|#
robc,
I did not distort John's position. To the question "why don't these
cases get picked up by the media," he answered "because they
involve gun owners defending themselves."
He is saying that, but for the gun angle, cases of police shooting
people in raids gone bad would make the national news. That is
false.
|2.5.08 @ 12:04PM|#
robc,
Way to focuse on the word "complete." Good thing you aren't making
a point of missing the point.
robc|2.5.08 @ 12:04PM|#
joe,
No where did John claim the killing of people in drug raids
usually gets major media attention
robc|2.5.08 @ 12:06PM|#
joe,
Complete means complete. I got the point.
Although, technically, absense would imply 0% too. But, I
understand that it might not always be used that way. By putting
the complete in front of absense, you verified with emphasis that
it was COMPLETE.
|2.5.08 @ 12:07PM|#
robc,
When you're reduced to deliberate obtuseness to defend your
argument, give it up. When asked why the media doesn't pick these
stories up, John said it was because of the gun angle. He further
stated that the media loves to cover these stories if there is no
gun angle.
You can figure this out. You don't need me to tell you that that
was what his argument was.
Other Matt|2.5.08 @ 12:11PM|#
First, you say the Atlanta case wasn't covered. I say it was
and only because it was a minority and an old woman.
John-I'd agree that it's the "old woman" more than a minority that
brought it to national exposure. having an "old woman" story gives
it more of a circus sideshow aspect. Having a minority being messed
up by the police, that's just another day at the office per joe and
his ilk. Had it been just a minority, that would have brought it
locally, unless Sharpton et al picked it up. Had it been a white
victim, it would have been just another beer swilling redneck and
joe would call your objections "silly".
You're failing to realize that joe's position is fluid depending
upon what he wants to try to justify at the moment, which is why I
was referring to him as a fuckwitted moron as he's terrible at it
generally. Well, no actually, no, to be precise, that was because
when he's presented with insurmountable facts, he goes off calling
one slanderous names and dismissing factual evidence as 'silly'. I
object to people calling me a racist with no foundation but for
their own contrivance, so I guess that's why I refer to him as a
fuckwitted moron.
Anyway, I agree that there is a strong anti gun bias in the media
which they use to color these stories as "used a gun equals bad".
However, I also respectfully differ with you in that I do believe
on a national level, they want to view themselves as being
supportive of both police and the "drug war", and therefore this
causes them to have a predisposition to not cover these stories
nationally. Why they do this, I don't know, perhaps the corporate
money is driving it, or perhaps the perception is that one cannot
be averse to heavy handedness by police and at the same time pro
"America", or perhaps the associate this with the crowd that is the
Sept 11 X files conspiracy types.
I can't explain it, I believe I see it there, as I see the anti gun
bias you reference. An example of the latter from a local paper was
a story that kept referring to a kid "touching" a gun causing it to
go off. This isn't possible mechanically, the kid pulled the
trigger, and the only possible reason I could think of to cause
them to write it as they did was so the gun was bad and the kid did
nothing out of the ordinary. Of course, they didn't focus near so
much on the idiot who put the gun in the kid's range of grasp, the
multiple domestic violence protection orders he had, previous
convictions for violence, etc, they just made the gun be bad, kid
be innocent.
Anyway, I just believe what you have in Atlanta is the freak show
factor of the old woman outweighing it.
|2.5.08 @ 12:15PM|#
Yes, I'm a racist for noting how much more often this happens to
black people.
If I wasn't such a fuckwit, I'd make a point of not knowing
that.
And your evidence for the fact that I would not object to this
happening to white people is...what, exactly? Oh, right, I pissed
you off on another thread, so I must hate white people.
If "my ilk" is willing to notice that the drug war falls hardest on
minorities, than good for my ilk, and shame on those who stick
their heads in the sand and pretend it doesn't.
|2.5.08 @ 12:15PM|#
John v. Joe - as pointlessly entertaining as ever.
Wow! I go away for a few months and Joe has become an even bigger
prick than he was before. Can he become ever angrier or if there is
some limit?
John, however, remains the same. Boring talking points (although
his spelling seems to have improved unless it's a different John in
which case, carry on). Get with it John, your anger will set you
free!
Other Matt|2.5.08 @ 12:28PM|#
Yes, I'm a racist for noting how much more often this
happens to black people.
and
If "my ilk" is willing to notice that the drug war falls
hardest on minorities, than good for my ilk, and shame on those who
stick their heads in the sand and pretend it doesn't.
No, joe, your ilk assumes that it doesn't fall on whites, and
that's why you're so much the fuckwit. You assume that blacks have
some kind of privelege which is denied to whites. You propegate
racial myths, instead of attacking wrong as wrong you make it black
vs white. You ignore John's very correct statement of the media
being anti gun, as you share that sentiment so it's ok with you.
You slander others when they don't, becuase you're an arrogant
ass.
So don't assume I agree with you, I say that the media has more to
do with preserving the power structure, but it has nothing to do
with color. I'd say that it's pretty racist to assume that someone
of any particular color has more rights to something than another,
but that's your assertion so I'll not comment on it.
Besides, why are you even paying attention to me? I'm "unhinged" by
your measure, shouldn't you be reworking your definitions again to
not be associated with me?
I can live with "joe is right, but he's mean."
Has nothing to do with mean, has everything to do with presuming my
ideas for me with no foundation, and slandering me unnecessarily,
fuckhead. It has a to do with responding to a long list of facts
and examples with nothing of substance as a basis for your slander.
I object to that, and I'm ok with myself objecting to that.
|2.5.08 @ 12:36PM|#
No, joe, your ilk assumes that it doesn't fall on
whites Um, where did I do that, again?
You do know the difference between "more often" and "always,"
right?
You have this nice little picture of teh evil liberals in your
head, and boy do you hate those guys! Unfortunately, I'm not the
liberal in your head, and if you bring that weak shit up against
me, you're going to end up looking stupid and feeling angry.
BTW, dumbass, I refuted John on the substance of his arguments,
using his own evidence. I guess you missed that part, because what
with me being an evil liberal and all - you know, one of those
people who don't think white people have rights - I just couldn't
have possibly done that.
Keep it up. Keep bringing this weak shit. We'll see how it goes for
you.
Oh, and dimwit, the reason I keep bothering with you, in case you
havent' figured it out yet, is because making people of low
character and little intellect look like fools, especially when
they pick pointless fights with me, is FUN.
|2.5.08 @ 12:41PM|#
You have this nice little picture of teh evil liberals in
your head, and boy do you hate those guys!
joe,
I don't think you're evil. I think many bad things about you, but
evil isn't on the list.
BTW, Lima gets more coverage because a baby in his mothers arms got
hit. If she'd been holding a remote instead, no big deal.
|2.5.08 @ 12:54PM|#
I don't think you're evil. I think many bad things about
you, but evil isn't on the list.
Worst.
Pick-up line.
Ever.
robc|2.5.08 @ 12:56PM|#
You do know the difference between "more often" and
"always," right?
Ummmm.....arent you the same person who tried to defend your use of
"completely" to not mean "always"?
|2.5.08 @ 1:00PM|#
Hey, Mr. Pedant, you didn't put an apostrophe in "aren't."
Given the content of your last few posts, I figured you'd be
interested in knowing that.
Jennifer|2.5.08 @ 1:06PM|#
Thanks, Jennifer, for getting John started on his liberal
media conspiracy rant.
Sorry.
robc|2.5.08 @ 1:13PM|#
I rarely (usually never) type apostraphes. I have yet to see a
case in which possession or contraction cant be figured out by
context. Im trying to change the language...I havent seen you
petitioning in the snow to get the language changed.
Call me a pedant all you want, but if you dont want me to be
pedantic, stop doing it yourself.
The Wine Commonsewer|2.5.08 @ 1:16PM|#
Why the HELL isn't the national media picking up on
this?
Because it is an obvious case of self-defense with a gun and no
respectable journalist would be caught dead writing/talking/filming
anything that remotely portrays firearms in the hands of a
citizen........
The Wine Commonsewer|2.5.08 @ 1:19PM|#
For the record, I hate the Grammar Police. This forum is not
part of a degree track for a BA in English. It is rare when someone
is so unable to communicate that you don't know WTF he/she is
saying. Even when Jamie is turning the air blue with rage, he's
still pretty clear. :-)
robc is right, everybody knows what he's talking about. Even
without an apostrophe.
|2.5.08 @ 1:20PM|#
It is not pedantic to note that Other Matt rewrote my statement
about the drug war "most often" falling on minorities to "never
falls on white people."
His made a substantive misstatement of my point, and I made a
substantive correction.
Ramsey|2.5.08 @ 1:22PM|#
10000 words wasted since the first response to John's
post.
Did you guys figure some way to get paid for doing this? Fess
up
Also joe, RE. your earlier post about the petard and the stinking,
it would be hard to cut someone down off of a black powder
explosive used by medieval military engineers. A petard was a
container of black powder fit with a fuse. The engineer would
burrow under the wall of a castle and use the petard to create a
breach in the wall. To be "hoist on his own petard" meant to be
blown vertically out of your tunnel after premature
detonation.
I only bring this up because I recently learned it myself, and it
is entertaining.
More than I can say about the current pissing match.
The Wine Commonsewer|2.5.08 @ 1:23PM|#
Highnumber wins the thread with this:
MITH: Harriet Tubman was a ex slave who helped lead the "underground railroad."
FACT: The nation's first subway system did not open until 1897.
And the splattered coffee has ruined my keyboard.
|2.5.08 @ 1:32PM|#
Other Matt | February 5, 2008, 10:39am | #
What color is the sky in your world, John?
Now joe, you presumptuous fuckwit moron,"
"Joe you ignorant slut" has a much better ring to it.
|2.5.08 @ 1:40PM|#
This is one of the strangest threads I've ever read on 'Hit
& Run'
One non sequitur after another...
|2.5.08 @ 1:45PM|#
"Because it is an obvious case of self-defense with a gun and no
respectable journalist would be caught dead writing/talking/filming
anything that remotely portrays firearms in the hands of a
citizen........"
You are exactly right. Frederick and Maye's case will never get
national coverage because to give them coverage as an obvious
injustice, the media would have to admit that people have a right
to defend themselves in their own homes. The national media as a
group doesn't view things like that. In their view Maye and
Frederick basically were taking their chances when they bothered to
own a gun and had no right to use them in defense of their homes no
matter how outrageous the police department's behavior. A lot of
people believe that. The entire political class of Britian believes
it. I don't know why anyone would find it such a surprise that our
national media believes that and lets tha belief determine how and
whether they cover stories.
Episiarch|2.5.08 @ 2:04PM|#
Be still, my dog of war. I understand your pain. We've all lost someone we love. But we do it my way! We do it my way. Fear is our ally.
|2.5.08 @ 2:39PM|#
Frederick and Maye's case will never get national coverage
because to give them coverage as an obvious injustice, the media
would have to admit that people have a right to defend themselves
in their own homes. The national media as a group doesn't view
things like that. In their view Maye and Frederick basically were
taking their chances when they bothered to own a gun and had no
right to use them in defense of their homes no matter how
outrageous the police department's behavior.
Funny, then, that the case in Atlanta, in which the woman shot at
the police, got national coverage.
|2.5.08 @ 2:58PM|#
Husband: Try new Shimmer, it's a desert topping.
Wife: No, it's a floor wax!
Husband: No, it's a desert topping!
Announcer: Take it easy you two. New Shimmer is both a desert
topping and a floor wax.
Reading, Joe and John going back and forth made me think of that
old SNL commercial parody.
Bottom line, the Fredick story gets no national play outside of
libertarian circles because it's a "dog bites man" story in the
minds of most members of the media. The Atlanta case, Diallo case,
and the Lima case all got lots more coverage as they are "man bites
dog" stories.
|2.5.08 @ 3:09PM|#
"Funny, then, that the case in Atlanta, in which the woman shot
at the police, got national coverage."
It was an old woman killed by the police. The grandma factor
certainly played a role. Also, she didn't kill anyone. She was
killed herself. Had she actually been able to kill a cop and not
been hurt herself, it would have been Corey Maye all over again.
How do you not cover an injustice like Corey Maye? Easy, you don't
cover it because you don't consider it an injustice because you
don't think Maye or anyone else for that matter has a right to
defend themselves.
|2.5.08 @ 3:16PM|#
"Why the HELL isn't the national media picking up on
this?"
I don't know. Why isn't they?
The word "media" is the plural of the word "medium". Third person
plurals call (not calls) for the verb "are", not "is".
|2.5.08 @ 3:26PM|#
John in Nashville,
If your true agendum today was to be as annoying as possible by
lecturing everyone about the grammar rules of dead languages, well
then you can cross that item off the list. Congrats. Excelsior and
stuff. Now go away.
T|2.5.08 @ 3:53PM|#
If your true agendum today was to be as annoying as possible
by lecturing everyone about the grammar rules of dead languages,
well then you can cross that item off the list.
English is dead? Who knew?
Wait, should that be English are dead? I'm so confused. This is
what I get for skipping class to go smoke dope...
|2.5.08 @ 4:09PM|#
I just wanted to make sure this thread is still crazy. Looks
that way.
*flings turd at joe*
|2.5.08 @ 4:24PM|#
Even when Jamie is turning the air blue with rage, he's
still pretty clear.
I'm a journalist, TWC, so it's my job to be snuffrickitously
schnazzle sauce.
Jennifer|2.5.08 @ 4:59PM|#
The word "media" is the plural of the word "medium". Third
person plurals call (not calls) for the verb "are", not
"is".
That's certainly one definition of the word "media," but you
overlooked the way the language has evolved over the last couple of
decades. The word is also a singular term referring to the trade
press.
The moral of this story is: next time you want to show off your
pedantry, do a quick Google search first to make sure you don't
expose your ignorance in the most embarrassingly ironic context
possible.
|2.5.08 @ 10:42PM|#
Gawd knows I won't say this often, but Joe has nailed it on this
thread.
I think I'll have another glass of wine and a shower now.
Robert|2.6.08 @ 2:37PM|#
You guys are all off your rockers. If newspeople are for or
against something, they play it up! If they're
against people keeping guns at home, they'd go out of their way to
seek a story about a homeowner shooting a cop because of some kind
of accident. If they're for war on drugs, they'd play up any story
about how drugs, directly or indirectly, "lead to"
violence.
I think these stories are less likely to be blasted nationally than
others about personal violence because these literally aren't sexy
and don't involve someone achieving or attempting to achieve great
material or psychic gain. If someone accidentally
raped a policeman, or if this were a revenge
killing or one in which one of the parties stood to make out
literally like a bandit, then it'd have more legs.
|2.6.08 @ 6:22PM|#
i knew Ryan Fredericks i was dating his sister for like 3 years and i know he was a good guy i don't believe that he would kill anyone unless he's was harm or in danger i believe the cop didn't even say his name or nothing he had gotten an order and didn't do his job right or nothing that y cops should have tape recorders or something but i think Ryan is inncicent to proven guilty so get yalls facts right and look into his eye's and see if he would do such thing as what people think he have done he already had alot of bad stuff happen to him when he was growing up his adopted dad died when he was like 9 or 10 or 11 i forgot when but he was young and he didn't get to graduated because of stupit school Oscar F. Smith because he supposed to be friend dump some weed on his hand when the princeiple came up to see what's going on and they found the bag but it wasn't his it was his friend well some friend that guy was to him so he didn't get to graduated wit his class mates in 1998... his adopted mom died in 2004 from over dose on some pills and not to long after that his grand parents died too... So my support to Ryan is writing down this message or comment thing hope he gets a good out come on this case and hope he going to be alright so best of wishes to a good guy Ryan Fredericks he was a good guy to me
|2.6.08 @ 9:46PM|#
This page is being set up by his uncle.
http://www.myspace.com/ryan_frederick
It will have a link soon (I hope) so that we can help contribute to
his defense.
|2.10.08 @ 12:49AM|#
[Daniel Maggie]
Get your facts straight, please! it was his REAL mother who passed
away, from a stupid doctor. and he DID graduate from Oscar Smith
HS. Don't believe that? Call up the school and ask.. he as a
diploma. I know you are supporting him, but think about the things
you say before you write them. Thanks
Webcam567|2.10.08 @ 12:52AM|#
By the way!
the Defense Fund HAS been set up on the myspace website... you
don't even need a profile to view it.
www.myspace.com/ryan_frederick
Thanks again for all the support!
Site comments/questions:
Media Inquiries and Reprint Permissions:
(310) 367-6109
Editorial & Production Offices:
3415 S. Sepulveda Blvd.
Suite 400
Los Angeles, CA 90034
(310) 391-2245