Why is big media ignoring two black teens killing a Pakistani man?

It COULD be something which you stated as FACT.

 

I get it... you're pretending that questions cannot be asked rhetorically, you know, like EXACTLY what you did with that question!

 

You've already acknowledged that he fit the description of a burglar.

 

How can it be a fact when he hasn't been found guilty??? At this point it can only be an opinion.

 

There are idiots out there who are saying that there's no point in the trial because the video is proof that it was murder.

 

Funny...I don't recall hearing about their history of going around chasing down white people who fit the description of people who've broken the law. Gee....wonder why that is...

 

And? What does that have to do with me?

 

Because "white" wouldn't have matched the physical description of the suspect.

 

I thought that you were one of them. It seems that you are not.

 

My lord...I wasn't talking about the Arbery case. Wow. Can you at least put a little effort into trying?

 

You thought wrong...seems to be a trend with you

 

Let me take a stab at the answer.
Because it suits their agenda?
Because it is the Trumpian thing to do? (UP is down, left is right fact is fiction)

 

You're assuming that there was previous burglary activity in their neighbourhood, with a physical description of a possible suspect made public.

 

Except big media DID ignore this story compared to stories where the suspects were white! And race wasn't even mentioned in this story if it was reported!

 

Except it's been proven big media did NOT ignore this story as evidence by all the links supplied to you.

 

A conspiracy, is it?
LOl

God help the nutty Trumpists. What a frightening little world they live in.

 

I said, "compared to stories where the suspects were white!"

 

A conspiracy? No, the media are pretty damn open about their biases! The opposite of a conspiracy. However, they do enjoy promoting conspiracy theories, such as Trump/Russia.

 

Yes, I understand. Up is down, left is right, fact is fiction. The insanity that so many live in Trumpworld!

 

Fiction is FACT according to the media! Again, Trump/Russian conspiracy theory.

 

Then why are you bringing it up?

Because you seemed to be complaining about news agencies deciding to cover this story. FYI, if you do not make clear, the POINT of your comments, you force me to guess. Your complaint made it clear only that you thought there was something wrong with this. If my guess-- and I phrased it as only a guess: "IF you are now going to advocate..."-- was incorrect, I don't feel you are in any position to react as you did-- "what the hell makes you think I'm advocating that?"-- as of you had a stick up your butt.

If you want me to know your meaning, you must explain it. If you don't, so I offer a speculation, you shouldn't hold it against me for not being able to fathom your esoteric reasoning; at the very least, you shouldn't accuse me of things that I didn't do. Or, in your own language,
What the HELL makes you think
that I think, you're advocating that?

What did I say that could possibly have given you that idea?

To be just bringing it up, out of the blue, this long after the fact, and obviously viewing it in a negative light, having some complaint about it (even if you haven't yet specified it), is a very good description of what, "harping," on something, means.

 

That we have a higher tolerance for unnecessary deaths, here, than I'd imagined; I was crediting you with realizing that (though I still think your estimate of it requiring something like a million road deaths per year, in a single state, to get the government to take remedial action, is overly-high).

OMG. Look at the sentences from my prior quote, which had, when I originally wrote it, immediately preceded-- before you broke them apart, with your quoting-- this quoted sentence. THAT, "gun (news) story." The ongoing news about all this country's gun deaths.

 

Everything I'd seen or heard has come, 80% or more, from the trial, itself. Does it make a difference on what station, one watches it, you jerk?

If not (I know you get easily lost, so, if you separate this paragraph from the one above it, in your response, I'm referring back to watching the actual trial as the main source for my impressions), then your criticism of me was utterly unwarranted and in fact, if you know the meaning of the thing you charged me with, ignorance, this was precisely what YOU were demonstrating, in your false assumptions about my information.

So this is how you want to interact? OK, I'll give it a try. Your 1st paragraph--

Everything that I have seen or heard." WOW! This is just SO telling! I shouldn't be surprised that from everything that you've seen or heard has led you to think that it's a ROCK SOLID case against Chauvin! Let me guess - you're watching CNN and/or MSNBC? Reading New York Times and/or Washington Post?--

says almost nothing, other than making the TRULY IGNORANT (once again) suggestion that the Washington Post & The New York Times are, relatively speaking, poor sources of news. We can each have a different opinion on that, & it proves nothing; they are only our individual opinions. So the closest we could get to what is generally accepted as fact, would be gauges of public opinion. And those see both these as highly credible. I'm not saying that absolutely proves the case, but it does prove, if a person has nothing better to support the contrary opinion, he would have to be a total ass to criticize the sources which the majority of the public, & an even higher % of more educated people, consider reliable. Are you using a source that is more trusted than either of those?
WAPO also has rec'd something like 50 Pulitzer Prizes (if you've ever heard of it) for its journalism, the second most of any news source in the country. The only newspaper with more-- the NYTimes.

So along with that 2nd indication of your ignorance, we can add a sign of undeserved pompousness. But hey, when Chauvin is acquitted, you can rub my face in your having been right. If he's convicted, though, that kind of leaves you up a tree; how do you get down from that limb, after being such a rude turd about it?

I guess we'll see.

 

Well what are you proposing to reduce gun death?

 

Are you watching the raw trial footage?