ForumGarden

This article points out that there has been an ongoing dispute over parking. The media is making religion the focus of its headline however. This sucks!

The media is racist or whatever the religion equivilent is, IMO. And they get away with it every time they don't point out the race and religion of every white victim of a crime.

Man charged with murder of three people near UNC | MSNBC

Well, it is hard to imagine a scenario where a simple parking dispute to escalate to shooting three people.

flopstock;1473848 wrote: This article points out that there has been an ongoing dispute over parking. The media is making religion the focus of its headline however. This sucks!

The media is racist or whatever the religion equivilent is, IMO. And they get away with it every time they don't point out the race and religion of every white victim of a crime.

Man charged with murder of three people near UNC | MSNBC


The headline isn't racist or sectarian, it is reporting the news as it has unfolded.

The frightening part of the news to me is that, in such a neighbour dispute, the availability of firearms makes it very easy for such a tragedy to occur.

Bruv;1473853 wrote: The headline isn't racist or sectarian, it is reporting the news as it has unfolded.

The frightening part of the news to me is that, in such a neighbour dispute, the availability of firearms makes it very easy for such a tragedy to occur.


No it isn't. We don't ever report that a white or protestant was killed.

flopstock;1473859 wrote: No it isn't. We don't ever report that a white or protestant was killed.


Because they are in the majority ?

Bruv;1473863 wrote: Because they are in the majority ?
But when a Black person gets killed by a White person, all hell breaks loose.

FourPart;1473864 wrote: But when a Black person gets killed by a White person, all hell breaks loose.


When a white policeman policing a majority black area kills a black man........do you mean ?

Bruv;1473853 wrote: The headline isn't racist or sectarian, it is reporting the news as it has unfolded.

The frightening part of the news to me is that, in such a neighbour dispute, the availability of firearms makes it very easy for such a tragedy to occur.


OMG they changed the headline! Hah!

Hopefully someone on staff asked the same question I did when I read it today... if they think it was over a parking dispute, what the hell does the religion of the victims have to do with it?

flopstock;1473848 wrote: The media is constantly stirring anymore - for ratings and views!


Duh. Have you been in a coma?

Context is everything - in northern Ireland in similar circumstances it is likely they would report the religion of the protagonists

To report the facts in a totally unbiased way would be "Someone killed 3 people over a parking dispute". End of story. No biased reporting of race, colour, religion or even gender. However, I don't imagine it would have much of a readership.

FourPart;1473891 wrote: To report the facts in a totally unbiased way would be "Someone killed 3 people over a parking dispute". End of story. No biased reporting of race, colour, religion or even gender. However, I don't imagine it would have much of a readership.


But that's not "unbiased". Unbiased would be, "The police said this, witnesses said that, the law says the other thing, and circumstances would support the one as long as .....".

High Threshold;1473878 wrote: Duh. Have you been in a coma?
No, working for a local newspaper... lol

FourPart;1473891 wrote: To report the facts in a totally unbiased way would be "Someone killed 3 people over a parking dispute". End of story. No biased reporting of race, colour, religion or even gender. However, I don't imagine it would have much of a readership.


Well, The police are investigating the possibility that the guy was motivated by religious/racial feelings. That is a fact of the case. But then His wife said he is mentally unstable and she has been unable to get him mental health treatment.

Though, I would like to hear more about the parking dispute. He apparently had been involved in a number of minor altercations with several neighbors over parking.

The Media seems to have lost interest in that part.

LarsMac;1473906 wrote: Well, The police are investigating the possibility that the guy was motivated by religious/racial feelings. That is a fact of the case. But then His wife said he is mentally unstable and she has been unable to get him mental health treatment.

Though, I would like to hear more about the parking dispute. He apparently had been involved in a number of minor altercations with several neighbors over parking.

The Media seems to have lost interest in that part.


The failure to receive adequate mental health treatment doesn't sell many papers,while a raving religious racist........well......this thread tells the tale.

flopstock;1473901 wrote: No, working for a local newspaper... lol


Oh Jesus! :yh_rotfl

LarsMac;1473906 wrote: Well, The police are investigating the possibility that the guy was motivated by religious/racial feelings. That is a fact of the case. But then His wife said he is mentally unstable and she has been unable to get him mental health treatment.

Though, I would like to hear more about the parking dispute. He apparently had been involved in a number of minor altercations with several neighbors over parking.

The Media seems to have lost interest in that part.
I don't know if the law is the same in the US, but I've never been happy about the fact that it's not permitted to raise the subject of a defendant's previous record of similar offences at a trial, supposedly because the knowledge of such a record would influence an unbiased outcome. For instance, a family loving man, loved by all is accused of child abuse, and the Jury are convinced by his brief that man of such high moral standing could not possibly commit such a horrendous act & find him Not Guilty - only to find that he has a previous record of Chld Abuse & has been on the Sex Offender's list most of his life. It may not be directly relevant to the case in question, but it has a hell of a lot of bearing on the nature of the defendant.

FourPart;1473949 wrote: I don't know if the law is the same in the US, but I've never been happy about the fact that it's not permitted to raise the subject of a defendant's previous record of similar offences at a trial, supposedly because the knowledge of such a record would influence an unbiased outcome. For instance, a family loving man, loved by all is accused of child abuse, and the Jury are convinced by his brief that man of such high moral standing could not possibly commit such a horrendous act & find him Not Guilty - only to find that he has a previous record of Chld Abuse & has been on the Sex Offender's list most of his life. It may not be directly relevant to the case in question, but it has a hell of a lot of bearing on the nature of the defendant.


I tend to agree with you. However, there are those who learn from their mistakes (granted paedophilia/child abuse is not really a “mistake but something much worse) and if you committed a crime in the past would it be fair to convict you out-of-hand on the strength of a witness who might be lying? But I do agree with you (mostly) although it's a difficult decision to make.

FourPart;1473949 wrote: I don't know if the law is the same in the US, but I've never been happy about the fact that it's not permitted to raise the subject of a defendant's previous record of similar offences at a trial, supposedly because the knowledge of such a record would influence an unbiased outcome. For instance, a family loving man, loved by all is accused of child abuse, and the Jury are convinced by his brief that man of such high moral standing could not possibly commit such a horrendous act & find him Not Guilty - only to find that he has a previous record of Child Abuse & has been on the Sex Offender's list most of his life. It may not be directly relevant to the case in question, but it has a hell of a lot of bearing on the nature of the defendant.


In the case of the child abuser it sounds emotively correct, but the accused past should have no bearing on the deliberations of the Jury.

The past is taken into account and revealed before the adjusted sentence is given.

Craig Stephen Hicks: 5 Fast Facts You Need to Know | Heavy.com

Some years ago I had the honour to sing with The Clefhangers (an a capella Male Voice Harmony group made up of students of UNC at Chapel Hill, who do International Concert Tours in order to raise Scholarship Funds for the University) on a couple of occasions. The following year I was very saddened to hear of the murder of another student associated with them - their manager, a girl, who was also a member of their Female counterpart group. Apparently the shooting had no motive there either. Just another nut with a gun which, by law, he was perfectly entitled to own. To the best of my knowledge, there were no racial connotations whatsoever. Just a nut with a gun, and a promising future is brought to an end, along with the heartbreak of her family.

BBC News - Was it right to label Chapel Hill shootings a 'hate crime' so quickly?

the guy admits he jumped the gun on this in order to 'open dialog'... my interpretation... we got played.

Who's "we"? I didn't allow myself to get "played".

LarsMac;1473850 wrote: Well, it is hard to imagine a scenario where a simple parking dispute to escalate to shooting three people.


Not around here it isn't. A year or so ago, a woman bodily tried to save a parking spot for her boyfriend on E. 14th St. in Manhattan. My blood boils just thinking about her arrogant stupidity. Anyway, a car pulled up, the driver demanded she move so he could park, she wouldn't, he punched her out, she wound up dead. No guns involved. Justifiable, not in killing her, but in forcibly making her move. Some noive!

AnneBoleyn;1475702 wrote: Not around here it isn't. A year or so ago, a woman bodily tried to save a parking spot for her boyfriend on E. 14th St. in Manhattan. My blood boils just thinking about her arrogant stupidity. Anyway, a car pulled up, the driver demanded she move so he could park, she wouldn't, he punched her out, she wound up dead. No guns involved. Justifiable, not in killing her, but in forcibly making her move. Some noive!


Thankfully no guns involved, like we need another gun story involving cars and parking places.

I am curious. Just how much force can one use to force a person to move? Just beat them to unconsciousness so to drag the body on the sidewalk?

Really now. I know NYC folk are a though bread, but damn.

If I ever head back that way, remind me to just take a cab.

tude dog;1475706 wrote: Thankfully no guns involved, like we need another gun story involving cars and parking places.

I am curious. Just how much force can one use to force a person to move? Just beat them to unconsciousness so to drag the body on the sidewalk?

Really now. I know NYC folk are a though bread, but damn.

If I ever head back that way, remind me to just take a cab.


I'm not sure if one can use any amount of force to make a person move. I think even the slightest push could be misdemeanor assault, & this woman was such a horrible bitch she thought what she was doing was right. A'int that always the way? & it's not so much that NYers are tough, it is parking that is at a high premium. One doesn't have the right to hold a space with one's body. I used to joke I'd lie down in a space, but I would have probably been run over. So, if a cop came along while she held the space he'd make her move, BUT if the other driver touched her to move, then he would be in trouble. As it is, he was found guilty of something, don't remember the charge exactly, & is serving time. Not murder though, as he didn't deliberately kill her (though she deserved Death, IMO).

Oh, I'd love it if you & the Missus would visit. I'll remind you to take cabs & car service & protect you on public transportation!

Remember to carry a variety of translation books if using a cab in NY.

Bruv;1475709 wrote: Remember to carry a variety of translation books if using a cab in NY.


You don't have to understand them, they just have to know how to use their GPS.

AnneBoleyn;1475717 wrote: You don't have to understand them, they just have to know how to use their GPS.


When traveling between La Guardia to JFK we got a ride around the block to terminal one of the same airport, because the driver must have misheard our destination. He was Haitian, I blamed our poor English