media ignores white man killed by black cop

[other one]

News had to be edited for many reason, while it did not have the spin it does today.  As Pilate asked, "What is truth?".  The news of our youth is nowhere like the news we have today.

I would disagree, it was just much more carefully manipulated...     A lot of things just was not reported, but those things that were, a really good speaker can guide you to see what he's saying in the way he wants you to hear it.....    I could derail the thread by bringing up reverse speech, but most of you would not even begin to accept that.....   subliminal pictures in the background to plant other things in your subconscious mind.      All kinds of things that you can feed information to people and they not even realize it.

 

Those skills made some people's reputations that they did not deserve.

[Guest shiloh357]

May I ask a question? Was or was not the police officer in the car when he was struck by Michael??

Yes, he was shoved into his car when he was assaulted by Brown.

[Burning_Ember]

 

 

 

 

So what you seem to be implying is that a white person who is brutally murdered is less important, less newsworthy than a black man being killed by a white man, in this case, a police officer even though the police officer was acting in self-defense.   Your comparison is invalid.  You are implying the fire that burns up a deck by accident is like the story of a white victim of black crime.   Sorry, but no one is going to buy that.

 

 

 

 

 

 

Why did the events happen? The criminal was probably doing it because of the complicated socio-economic factors that would lead someone to commit a crime in the first place. I mean, who REALLY wants to steal? Almost nobody. Crime arises out of many inter-sectional conditions such as poverty, lack of education, lack of economic opportunities, cultural environment, etc because he's an evil badman and you can't fit much else into 200 words. The officer in this instance is just doing his job, which is dangerous, to protect and serve. Sounds kind of like a hero. (Hint, I'm using the word hero a lot. An officer getting shot is almost certainly going to be portrayed as a hero. The journalistic term for that type of story is literally a "hero story".

 

Well, yes.  Police officers are actually heroes, and that is accentuated when they get killed by criminals.

 

As for the part you crossed through, which I think would be your explanation for the reason criminals do what they do....   That approach to the criminal makes his actions society's fault.   He's not at fault, society made him a criminal according to how you approach this.  If he had better opportunities, better environment, was not born on the poor side of the tracks, he would not be committing these crimes...   It's everyone else's fault but the criminal; suddenly its the criminal who becomes the victim, in the liberal mindset.

 

The truth is that despite what liberals claim, everyone has an equal shot at a good life in this country.  I know of people who are happy and successful who are suffering from cerebral palsy, who live productive lives despite physical handicaps/disabilities.  They are not living on food stamps, and while they do need some assistance for certain things, they take the bull by horns, they have jobs and they don't sit around feeling sorry for themselves, whining and blaming everyone else.  They have some ambition and they represent the best in our country and demonstrate what some determination and strength of character can accomplish.

 

So when an able-bodies black man whines and snivels around about how he is kept down and denies equal treatment, it isn't worth listening to.   He is a liar.  He is simply too lazy to get up and make his own way.   The US bends over backwards to accommodate the needs of racial minorities, but we are not going to treat them like royalty.

 

There are pockets of racism in the US, but they do not represent the majority of white Americans who, by a landslide twice elected an African American president.   You can sit on here and blather on and on about how some supposed culture in this country that disadvantages black people but the truth is that this country boasts a huge number of successful African Americans in the fields of politics, medicine, sports, music, sports, and business.

 

 

 

 

Now to talk a bit about Michael Brown and Dillon Taylor. One of those those stories is more newsworthy and is a bigger story.

 

Did Dillon's story catapult to the frontpage of virtually all social media, thereby creating a massive demand for more information on the story? Is there any historical context and/or a current problem that could possibly indicate that caucasians are targeted by police officers? For example, if a white male gets stopped with drugs, is he four times more likely to be arrested than a black male who gets stopped for the same thing? Is that white male statistically many times more likely to serve prison time that a black male for that same crime? Were there local and national protests about Dillon? Did anyone riot? Was the police response to the protests near military level, involving deploying rooftop snipers, MRAP's used in warzones, and The National Guard? Did the police threaten unarmed protestors by pointed loaded guns at them? Did the police respond to journalists, American and International, by arresting them? Did they intentionally shoot tear gas at TV news crews and then take their equipment down?

 

The answer to all of those questions for Dillon Taylor is a resounding no. If you flip those questions around a bit, all of those things happen in the Michael Brown story. They are not getting covered equally because the stories are not equal.

 

Mistake #1:   There is only ONE story, not two stories.  You are trying to create a false dichotomy.   There is one story in play.  Michael Brown assaulted a police officer.   He drew first blood.   The fact that one is black and one is white is irrelevant to the issue.   Liberals make an issue of race, but this story has nothing to do with race.

 

Mistake #2:  You fail to acknowledge that the liberal media ran with the narrative they wanted to push.  This was not about honest journalism.  The media made this about race because that's what sells, and that's what generates ratings. 

 

Mistake #3:  You are asking all of the wrong questions.  Liberals usually do that when they are pushing a "race" agenda.   If we go by nothing more than the facts of this case, then what we have is a thief who assaulted a police officer and who attempted a second similar assault but was killed when the officer (who was not physically capable of subduing the criminal) fired his gun in self-defense.  What you should be asking is why Michael Brown was in such a state of mind that he had to be shot five times in order to be taken down. In the past, that is evidence of a person being under the influence of a controlled substance. 

 

For your first paragraph., that's NOT what I said. That is a terrible false witness about what I actually said.

 

Let's go back to one of those Dictionary definitions I bolded.

 

an account of past events in someone's life or in the evolution of something.

 

A news is not necessarily a singular event. What happens before matters, but the reason Brown is such a big story is the connected events to what happened afterwards. See that bit? Evolution? That's super important. Because the situation evolved.

 

Up until the death of Taylor and the death of Brown, both stories on a look similar. We agree on that.

 

The bigger fire is what matters. Michael Brown is a bigger story because:

A Shooting + Protests + Riots +Tear Gas + Arrests + Mine Resistant Vehicles used in a protest + loads of other events,

 

Is greater than:

 

A shooting.

 

It's that simple. 

 

Why did you imply Michael Brown could've been on drugs? Do you have any actual evidence of that? Toxicology report perhaps?

[OakWood]

 

 

 

 

 

So what you seem to be implying is that a white person who is brutally murdered is less important, less newsworthy than a black man being killed by a white man, in this case, a police officer even though the police officer was acting in self-defense.   Your comparison is invalid.  You are implying the fire that burns up a deck by accident is like the story of a white victim of black crime.   Sorry, but no one is going to buy that.

 

 

 

 

 

 

Why did the events happen? The criminal was probably doing it because of the complicated socio-economic factors that would lead someone to commit a crime in the first place. I mean, who REALLY wants to steal? Almost nobody. Crime arises out of many inter-sectional conditions such as poverty, lack of education, lack of economic opportunities, cultural environment, etc because he's an evil badman and you can't fit much else into 200 words. The officer in this instance is just doing his job, which is dangerous, to protect and serve. Sounds kind of like a hero. (Hint, I'm using the word hero a lot. An officer getting shot is almost certainly going to be portrayed as a hero. The journalistic term for that type of story is literally a "hero story".

 

Well, yes.  Police officers are actually heroes, and that is accentuated when they get killed by criminals.

 

As for the part you crossed through, which I think would be your explanation for the reason criminals do what they do....   That approach to the criminal makes his actions society's fault.   He's not at fault, society made him a criminal according to how you approach this.  If he had better opportunities, better environment, was not born on the poor side of the tracks, he would not be committing these crimes...   It's everyone else's fault but the criminal; suddenly its the criminal who becomes the victim, in the liberal mindset.

 

The truth is that despite what liberals claim, everyone has an equal shot at a good life in this country.  I know of people who are happy and successful who are suffering from cerebral palsy, who live productive lives despite physical handicaps/disabilities.  They are not living on food stamps, and while they do need some assistance for certain things, they take the bull by horns, they have jobs and they don't sit around feeling sorry for themselves, whining and blaming everyone else.  They have some ambition and they represent the best in our country and demonstrate what some determination and strength of character can accomplish.

 

So when an able-bodies black man whines and snivels around about how he is kept down and denies equal treatment, it isn't worth listening to.   He is a liar.  He is simply too lazy to get up and make his own way.   The US bends over backwards to accommodate the needs of racial minorities, but we are not going to treat them like royalty.

 

There are pockets of racism in the US, but they do not represent the majority of white Americans who, by a landslide twice elected an African American president.   You can sit on here and blather on and on about how some supposed culture in this country that disadvantages black people but the truth is that this country boasts a huge number of successful African Americans in the fields of politics, medicine, sports, music, sports, and business.

 

 

 

 

Now to talk a bit about Michael Brown and Dillon Taylor. One of those those stories is more newsworthy and is a bigger story.

 

Did Dillon's story catapult to the frontpage of virtually all social media, thereby creating a massive demand for more information on the story? Is there any historical context and/or a current problem that could possibly indicate that caucasians are targeted by police officers? For example, if a white male gets stopped with drugs, is he four times more likely to be arrested than a black male who gets stopped for the same thing? Is that white male statistically many times more likely to serve prison time that a black male for that same crime? Were there local and national protests about Dillon? Did anyone riot? Was the police response to the protests near military level, involving deploying rooftop snipers, MRAP's used in warzones, and The National Guard? Did the police threaten unarmed protestors by pointed loaded guns at them? Did the police respond to journalists, American and International, by arresting them? Did they intentionally shoot tear gas at TV news crews and then take their equipment down?

 

The answer to all of those questions for Dillon Taylor is a resounding no. If you flip those questions around a bit, all of those things happen in the Michael Brown story. They are not getting covered equally because the stories are not equal.

 

Mistake #1:   There is only ONE story, not two stories.  You are trying to create a false dichotomy.   There is one story in play.  Michael Brown assaulted a police officer.   He drew first blood.   The fact that one is black and one is white is irrelevant to the issue.   Liberals make an issue of race, but this story has nothing to do with race.

 

Mistake #2:  You fail to acknowledge that the liberal media ran with the narrative they wanted to push.  This was not about honest journalism.  The media made this about race because that's what sells, and that's what generates ratings. 

 

Mistake #3:  You are asking all of the wrong questions.  Liberals usually do that when they are pushing a "race" agenda.   If we go by nothing more than the facts of this case, then what we have is a thief who assaulted a police officer and who attempted a second similar assault but was killed when the officer (who was not physically capable of subduing the criminal) fired his gun in self-defense.  What you should be asking is why Michael Brown was in such a state of mind that he had to be shot five times in order to be taken down. In the past, that is evidence of a person being under the influence of a controlled substance. 

 

For your first paragraph., that's NOT what I said. That is a terrible false witness about what I actually said.

 

Let's go back to one of those Dictionary definitions I bolded.

 

an account of past events in someone's life or in the evolution of something.

 

A news is not necessarily a singular event. What happens before matters, but the reason Brown is such a big story is the connected events to what happened afterwards. See that bit? Evolution? That's super important. Because the situation evolved.

 

Up until the death of Taylor and the death of Brown, both stories on a look similar. We agree on that.

 

The bigger fire is what matters. Michael Brown is a bigger story because:

A Shooting + Protests + Riots +Tear Gas + Arrests + Mine Resistant Vehicles used in a protest + loads of other events,

 

Is greater than:

 

A shooting.

 

It's that simple. 

 

Why did you imply Michael Brown could've been on drugs? Do you have any actual evidence of that? Toxicology report perhaps?

 

 

You're missing the point. Rioting occurred afterwards because the story had already a spin put on it.

It's not a bigger story because of the rioting. The story CAUSED the rioting.

So the question is - why was this story bigged up in the first place? Why is a Black man being shot by the police a bigger story than a White man being shot by a Black police officer?

Why was so much made out of the Brown story that led to public outrage?

[ayin jade]

 

So the question is - why was this story bigged up in the first place? Why is a Black man being shot by the police a bigger story than a White man being shot by a Black police officer?

Why was so much made out of the Brown story that led to public outrage?

 

Race baiting. This is what feeds certain groups in power.

[ayin jade]

 

As for the part you crossed through, which I think would be your explanation for the reason criminals do what they do....   That approach to the criminal makes his actions society's fault.   He's not at fault, society made him a criminal according to how you approach this.  If he had better opportunities, better environment, was not born on the poor side of the tracks, he would not be committing these crimes...   It's everyone else's fault but the criminal; suddenly its the criminal who becomes the victim, in the liberal mindset.

 

The truth is that despite what liberals claim, everyone has an equal shot at a good life in this country.  I know of people who are happy and successful who are suffering from cerebral palsy, who live productive lives despite physical handicaps/disabilities.  They are not living on food stamps, and while they do need some assistance for certain things, they take the bull by horns, they have jobs and they don't sit around feeling sorry for themselves, whining and blaming everyone else.  They have some ambition and they represent the best in our country and demonstrate what some determination and strength of character can accomplish.

 

So when an able-bodies black man whines and snivels around about how he is kept down and denies equal treatment, it isn't worth listening to.   He is a liar.  He is simply too lazy to get up and make his own way.   The US bends over backwards to accommodate the needs of racial minorities, but we are not going to treat them like royalty.

 

To give an example that I know is true. My husband's family grew up under dire poverty in the us. In the 19th most poor county in the us. On an indian reservation. He grew up in a family of violence and alcoholism. Where unemployment rates even in the best of times is well over 50%. Yet his mother instilled values in him and his 4 brothers and sisters. Today each one of them has a college education and got out of the poverty. Three of them work in the medical field. They worked hard to get where they are today. They didnt give up and say the man has beaten us down. They worked for what they have. They made good choices to get out of poverty. As for unequal treatment ...  

Navajo indians did not have full rights to vote until 1948. Nor was slavery for them ended with the civil war. Spanish in New Mexico kept them as slaves later than 1865. 

 

Some people need and deserve to have financial help. Others just feel it is owed to them as reparations or some such nonsense and have a sense of entitlement. Its time folks who can work, who can better their lives, start doing so.

[Littlelambseativy]

The same story for Dr. Ben Carson, his brother and his mother who dispite the area, the circumstances fought for a better life for her 2 sons. What a success story. IF there is a will.

[Enoc]

Racism in reverse needs to get more attention. With Obama being the "leader of the free world" or "leader of the worlds last super power", all the racial rhetoric would have subsided but it seems to have escalated.

 

The current news cycle keeps the minorities against Cops in full view which is not the norm, but isolated instances.

[Burning_Ember]

 

You're missing the point. Rioting occurred afterwards because the story had already a spin put on it.

It's not a bigger story because of the rioting. The story CAUSED the rioting.

So the question is - why was this story bigged up in the first place? Why is a Black man being shot by the police a bigger story than a White man being shot by a Black police officer?

Why was so much made out of the Brown story that led to public outrage?

 

A journalist for USA Today went on a website called reddit to get asked questions by the users. She says there her sources tell her otherwise, that in fact protests and rioting occurred before major news networks had done any real coverage.

 

https://twitter.com/Yamiche

 

That's her twitter. It's recent on there. I probably shouldn't link directly to the website mentioned due to language, but I can PM you a link to where she says that if you like.

[Guest LadyC]

rule number one, you can never believe much of anything a journalist tells you. 

 

so let me ask... although from your strike-out comments earlier i can guess where you stand, but i'll ask anyway. who do you empathize with? the cop, or michael brown? i ask this because you seem to be so quick to defend the public outcry and media attention that is all over this story, while you seem to have no concern at all for the other story. 

 

and let me mention rule # 2. the reason the rioting is going on is because that's what black people do these days when one of their own is killed by a cop while the guy is in the act of robbing or beating someone else. it's a victim mentality. it's a "black people are saints that are unfairly targeted" mentality. it's the jessie jacksons and al sharptons who like to get involved and proclaim police brutality when the truth is the exact opposite.

 

where do you stand?