7 year old girl murdered in Houston (3 Viewers)

You are correct. I really didn't think much about how I worded that statement, but it seems everyone else was much more concerned with it than I was. It was just a nod to the fact that some would place a racial impact on this.

I've learned from this and will choose more carefully next time.

Hah, it's a lot easier lesson than learning, for example, it's better to ask your spouse if she has" had a chance to" do something rather than asking if she has "bothered to."
 
I'll take a stab at it. I think part of it stems from the perception that any negative encounter between people of different races brings about not just a presumption that the event was the result of racial animus, but an irrebuttable presumption this was the case. Take for example the incidents cited in the "why do white people keep calling the cops on black people" thread. I can recall one incident in that thread that was obviously racially motivated. Race may have played a factor in others, but the fact is that people treat each other poorly for many reasons. In that thread, we actually had at least one poster who was taking the position that in the absence of video evidence of white people calling the police on other white people for trivial crap, that it simply does not occur. The reality is that if one does not have at least one neighbor who is a little flakey and is to be avoided at all costs, then that person should consider himself lucky.

In this instance the OP, to his credit, did acknowledge that the event may have been caused by a number of factors. But, to be honest, that disclaimer felt like he was giving himself cover to say what he in fact went on to say, "that the racial overtones are quite obvious." Personally, my impression is that the OP is generally inclined to have a "let's wait for the facts" attitude, so I felt like it was just his wording that made that statement more abrasive than if he had said something like, "the facts do seem to present the possibility that this was racially motivated."

I mean ... I guess. I'll just be honest, it comes of as being hypersensitive to anything being labeled a race issue. In that sense, you're no better than the people you accuse of race baiting for everything.

We know we have a race and hate crime problem in America (and all over the world for that matter). And we know that in America's history, a lot of that has been white on black hate crimes. So to look at a situation like this one and think that race may have played a roll in the murder based off what we initially knew, isn't extreme or race bating or anything other than common sense. Of course, we now know that not to be the case, but that was always a possibility as well.

We just didn't know that much, which leads everybody to try and fill in the blanks. Thankfully, with the tips that where provided, the police filled in the right blanks that led them to the right assailant.
 
Last edited:
I'll take a stab at it. I think part of it stems from the perception that any negative encounter between people of different races brings about not just a presumption that the event was the result of racial animus, but an irrebuttable presumption this was the case. Take for example the incidents cited in the "why do white people keep calling the cops on black people" thread. I can recall one incident in that thread that was obviously racially motivated. Race may have played a factor in others, but the fact is that people treat each other poorly for many reasons. In that thread, we actually had at least one poster who was taking the position that in the absence of video evidence of white people calling the police on other white people for trivial crap, that it simply does not occur. The reality is that if one does not have at least one neighbor who is a little flakey and is to be avoided at all costs, then that person should consider himself lucky.

In this instance the OP, to his credit, did acknowledge that the event may have been caused by a number of factors. But, to be honest, that disclaimer felt like he was giving himself cover to say what he in fact went on to say, "that the racial overtones are quite obvious." Personally, my impression is that the OP is generally inclined to have a "let's wait for the facts" attitude, so I felt like it was just his wording that made that statement more abrasive than if he had said something like, "the facts do seem to present the possibility that this was racially motivated."
here's the thing yes there could also be many other granular reasons for bad behavior
but as social beings we operate on both a individual and social levels
to focus exclusively on the individual ignores broad (statistically demonstrated) trends

but the rub:
i believe you and i check the same broad demographic boxes
this almost certainly means that neither of us have experienced the specifics of racism, or misogyny, or homophobia, or xenophobia
because of that i tend to believe those who are most likely to experience those things
of course that means i'm going to get it wrong occasionally
but it's my firmly held believe that you check power and question the status quo when you can
 
This thread got silly.

It all started for a simple reason. The Authorities gave out the wrong information about the shooters, which lead to the obvious question about motive. Now, this was likely do to an error on the family's part, as they were shocked and may have misidentified a witness as the killer. There was no clear motive, so race would seemingly be the most plausible motive with the little information gathered.

Then it became this odd capital punishment discussion and punishment fetishes that many people have. Read comments on any social media post about a lesser crime or a short jail sentence and watch people lose their minds over it.

Then, come to find out, all of the initial information we received about the crime and suspect was wrong. It was just a gang related retaliation shooting gone wrong, due to mistaken identity.

Based on that, it's more of a story about gang violence out of control and how the innocents get caught in the middle.

This is an example of how the spread of information at a lightening pace can be a problem. What if the public found the "suspect" in the sketch and took matters into their own hands?

There probably isn't really much more to discuss or debate at this point. Most of the arguments that have ensued are just silly at this point.
 
I mean ... I guess. I'll just be honest, it comes of as being hypersensitive to anything being labeled a race issue. In that sense, you're no better than the people you accuse of race baiting for everything.

We know we have a race and hate crime problem in America (and all over the world for that matter). And we know that in America's history, a lot of that has been white on black hate crimes. So to look at a situation like this one and think that race may have played a roll in the murder based off what we initially knew, isn't extreme or race bating or anything other than common sense. Of course, we know that now not to be the case, but that was always a possibility as well.

We just didn't know that much, which leads everybody to try and fill in the blanks. Thankfully, with the tips that where provided, the police filled in the right blanks that led them to the right assailant.
I am not oblivious to the possibility that the facts as presented raised the possibility that this was a hate crime, and I admit to thinking something like, "please don't let it turn out that the piece of work shooter is a deranged racist." It would not have changed the fact that an innocent child is dead, but we don't need more of that crap.


here's the thing yes there could also be many other granular reasons for bad behavior
but as social beings we operate on both a individual and social levels
to focus exclusively on the individual ignores broad (statistically demonstrated) trends

but the rub:
i believe you and i check the same broad demographic boxes
this almost certainly means that neither of us have experienced the specifics of racism, or misogyny, or homophobia, or xenophobia
because of that i tend to believe those who are most likely to experience those things
of course that means i'm going to get it wrong occasionally
but it's my firmly held believe that you check power and question the status quo when you can

Fair enough. As you noted, neither of us have eliminated the possibility of error. You are just more likely to err on one side and I am more likely to err on the other. Maybe that's not a bad thing, as it tends to keep people in check and bring balance.

I do have an issue with the use of "power" as a category. Is that post modern bullshirt coming out? I also note that believing people on the basis of their identity is not without its hazards. At the same time I recognize that different experiences bring about different experiences. I started to give examples of my own life experiences (which are not what you would expect), but quite frankly that has a very cringeworthy virtue signaling feel to it and nobody has the stomach for that.
 
I think we can all agree that the mom gets a free pass on this one. It was dark. She got shot. Her baby girl is dead. God bless and keep her.

Various news outlets chose to give this story lots of "play." The one I saw the most was CNN. This was not an arbitrary choice, an editorial-level decision made this one of the most newsworthy stories of the day on their network, nationally. I question that decision.

Once it was revealed that there wasn't a redneck in a red pick up truck hunting black people, CNN did report that Sean King had broken the case and they gave the story equal play. That is a good thing.

Sean King deserves recognition for his integrity and he got a well-deserved thank you from the police.

I would not compare this case to the Tawana Brawly case. She deliberately lied and mislead.

Instead, I'd compare it to the Atlanta child murders, where the media spent a good deal of time speculating that there was a white person out there hunting black children. Turned out it was a black guy, though some folks still choose not to acknowledge it.
 
I think we can all agree that the mom gets a free pass on this one. It was dark. She got shot. Her baby girl is dead. God bless and keep her.

Various news outlets chose to give this story lots of "play." The one I saw the most was CNN. This was not an arbitrary choice, an editorial-level decision made this one of the most newsworthy stories of the day on their network, nationally. I question that decision.

Once it was revealed that there wasn't a redneck in a red pick up truck hunting black people, CNN did report that Sean King had broken the case and they gave the story equal play. That is a good thing.

Sean King deserves recognition for his integrity and he got a well-deserved thank you from the police.

I would not compare this case to the Tawana Brawly case. She deliberately lied and mislead.

Instead, I'd compare it to the Atlanta child murders, where the media spent a good deal of time speculating that there was a white person out there hunting black children. Turned out it was a black guy, though some folks still choose not to acknowledge it.

Why was the media wrong to give the case the spot light? Why was CNN wrong?

I don't think they were wrong. The attention, including national attention, would be expected with any case like this.

Why is it that everybody is looking for somebody or some entity that did something wrong? I don't think anybody did anything wrong or questionable. Why is there even a blame game?

The only people that did anything wrong, are the killers. Everybody else did their job.
 
I think we can all agree that the mom gets a free pass on this one. It was dark. She got shot. Her baby girl is dead. God bless and keep her.

Various news outlets chose to give this story lots of "play." The one I saw the most was CNN. This was not an arbitrary choice, an editorial-level decision made this one of the most newsworthy stories of the day on their network, nationally. I question that decision.

Once it was revealed that there wasn't a redneck in a red pick up truck hunting black people, CNN did report that Sean King had broken the case and they gave the story equal play. That is a good thing.

Sean King deserves recognition for his integrity and he got a well-deserved thank you from the police.

I would not compare this case to the Tawana Brawly case. She deliberately lied and mislead.

Instead, I'd compare it to the Atlanta child murders, where the media spent a good deal of time speculating that there was a white person out there hunting black children. Turned out it was a black guy, though some folks still choose not to acknowledge it.


It started as a local news report, and when you have a suspect at large, with no obvious motive for killing, the concern is that there is a public menace out there, indiscriminately killing people. It is the right call to push that story to various outlets.

if the initial account was correct, this could have saved a lot of lives.

Look, we don't have a lot of racially motivated killings out there. The vast majority are perpetrated by people the victim knows. You're more likely to be killed by your family than a stranger (I could be wrong about that, but it's stunning how many are domestic violence cases). So, when one shows up, or potentially shows up, it is news.

It's ironic and how sensitive some people get about this are often the same ones clamoring about the over sensitivity of people. If a black suspect randomly shot at white people in traffic, it would be major news. Just like the DC sniper and they had no idea who or why this person was shooting people. The suspected motives went all over the place. It's major news when things are dangerous and unknown.
 
This is an example of how the spread of information at a lightening pace can be a problem. What if the public found the "suspect" in the sketch and took matters into their own hands?

Shaun King said the same thing - that there's a danger there and that the witness (who, at the time of the first releases of information) is probably somewhere fearing for his life.

It can be incredibly perilous.

Reddit's role in the Boston Bomber attack is one example that comes to mind. That was a totally tragic wreck for a number of reasons. And highlighted the dangerous irresponsibility you are talking about.

When the suspect was initially white, the discussion around race was about how it was a racist white dude who wanted to shoot up some black people (something that has obviously happened, and recently, and probably in a lot of people's minds) and that becomes the jumped-to conclusion. When it came out that the police were searching for someone black, I saw comments about how "mom was a drug dealer and this was a deal gone bad" and "mom was a gang banger who crossed the wrong person and she's trying to hide her past" and such, with references to black on black violence and gang-related crime. The race of the suspect played the same inflammatory role for people, but this time it was flipped. Same incident, a matter of hours and we see extremes employed.

Most murders aren't motivated by racial animus, but when something like this happens - one of the first things people reach for because of the "lightning pace" is a racial angle.

Mistaken identities or wrong information at that point can be dangerous to innocent people, risking even more innocent lives.
 
I'd add, the suspects said when they heard it on the news, they knew the screwed up and admitted to the crime during a traffic stop. Did they hear it on the local news or CNN, or some other national news?

I mean, the suspects likely aren't the biggest news consumers out there. What would they be watching/reading?
 
Why was the media wrong to give the case the spot light? Why was CNN wrong?

I don't think they were wrong. The attention, including national attention, would be expected with any case like this.

Why is it that everybody is looking for somebody or some entity that did something wrong? I don't think anybody did anything wrong or questionable. Why is there even a blame game?

The only people that did anything wrong, are the killers. Everybody else did their job.

Hi Coldseat,

I didn't say they were wrong. I said I question the decision. As a Journalism major, with experience as a reporter and bureau chief, I'd like to see their logic and see how it fits into standard practices.

-dd
 
Hi Coldseat,

I didn't say they were wrong. I said I question the decision. As a Journalism major, with experience as a reporter and bureau chief, I'd like to see their logic and see how it fits into standard practices.

-dd

Wait, what? When were you a reporter?
 
But....muh narrative :(

Maybe this is an opportunity for self-reflection for some people. Maybe we can openly wonder why the media pushed this story, and why it is currently the hottest thread on the EE. I mean there were 280 murders in Houston last year. How many did you hear about? How many were a popular topic of discussion on the EE? But oh man, white guy in a red pickup truck murders a little black girl in Texas. That's juicy, I gotta admit. I know that was some tasty bait for several people on the EE.

RIP to the little girl, who we never would have heard about if it wasn't reported that the murderer was a white man.

If it had been reported as a Muslim, we’d have heard about it.

The reason is that in either of those cases, the story would be more interesting to the general public. Stories more interesting to the general public improve ratings. It’s ok because most of it is probably true.

My point is that the media is biased, but not towards liberals, conservatives, white men or Muslims. It is biased towards sensationalism.

That’s partially our fault as a public, and partially the fault of our economic system. Capitalism does some things well, but encoraging media companies to provide accurate information is not one of them.
 
Last edited:

Create an account or login to comment

You must be a member in order to leave a comment

Create account

Create an account on our community. It's easy!

Log in

Already have an account? Log in here.

Users who are viewing this thread

    Back
    Top Bottom