If an American was shot to death, it’s tragic. No ifs, ands, or buts about it. Full stop.
That said, given the state of news “reporting” in the US these days it’s probably a good idea to take this story with a grain of salt.
A quick google search shows that one of the reporters, Mohammed Syed, is from San Francisco and is based in NYC. I would be very surprised if NBC News is flying it’s associate reporters down to Georgia to cover a shooting. Also, he “chases leads” for MSNBC, which is not exactly famous for reporting the news impartially. In addition, I’m fairly confident Mr. Syed would prefer a promotion to covering viral content.
I am NOT saying the story is wrong or biased or fudged or misreported.
I’m just saying that these days if a news story makes your BP rise, it’s a good idea to take a closer look and maybe wait ten seconds before you feel free to go nukular.
It seems like a pretty complete and straightforward piece, laying out the facts. I’m not saying it’s not the things you mention there, but its content doesn’t raise any obvious red flags.
I’m pretty sure the sad reality that is too often ‘a black person’s life intersecting with racism’ was never meant to be in the same sentence with the comedic term ‘while being black’. but I think that’s not an opinion we do or will agree on anytime soon, and that’s fine.
You cited an experience in reference to your opinion, so I was curious. My response to you was about what you wrote:
“…the term is quite accurate. At least to those who have experienced it.”
I thought you meant you had an actual experience related to ‘while being black’, so I asked.
Interesting. I think there must be some facts left out.
The story makes almost no sense unless the shooters are psychopaths. Why did the victim reach for the shotgun? Why did the DA conclude the evidence does not support filing charges? What facts caused the DA to disregard reaching for the shotgun in the decision not to file?
Of course it may not be the case that some facts were withheld. It may be that they weren’t known, or couldn’t be verified. But to me it seems like a story only half told.
We seldom get all the facts in a news article about an ongoing criminal case. Sometimes it’s impossible to say what actually happened even after a trial. It could be that things were left out. Those are good questions, and while they are unanswered, the authors don’t seem to have jumped to any conclusions about them.
That’s true, but I have to recognize that’s also the case for most “developing” stories.
Another thing is that many - perhaps most - shootings are very poorly reported by US reporters. If a story involves guns, it’s almost guaranteed to have errors in the first version.
That’s why I prefer to read the original articles.
That way, the spin is lessened somewhat.
Ex:
A Georgia family is disappointed, and desperate for answers, surrounding the killing of their loved one. According to TheNew York Times, 25-year-old Ahmaud Arbery was shot to death by a father and son while presumably out jogging in a suburban neighborhood near his home. Nobody has been held responsible.
OK, but at the end of the article, this sticks out:
The family and activists contend that even if Arbery was guilty of the crimes the McMichaels say he committed, it did not warrant his killing by armed neighbors.
I don’t get what they are saying…that he was casing/robbing the house? It’s a weird place to play hypothetical, right?
I didn’t do it, and even if I did…
There must be a rhetorical name for that kind of reasoning.
Plainly laying some groundwork for a civil suit, I imagine. Civil suits over shootings work best if activists can pressure the state’s attorney into filing criminal charges first.
Even if the defendant(s) are found not guilty, a criminal trial or settlement can be a boon in a civil proceeding.
They cannot say they felt soooo threatened that they HAD to chase the guy down, confront him with two weapons and three dudes, and then shoot him to death.
If that’s what actually happened, then I agree … although imho the DA should file charges. Two months later, however, that has yet to happen. Plenty of time for the Georgia Bureau of Investigations to step in. Or the US Attorney.
Not always. The TM story had eye witnesses who saw TM fully mounted on GZ, whooping his ass, and the first responders had pics of Z’s face and head all busted up.
NBC should inquire about the availability the WJXT reporter imo. NBC story was filed a day after the WJXT story yet somehow has less relevant information in it.
Probably verifies that NBC in NYC did not dispatch anybody to Georgia to report, and instead compiled a story.
Just posting what I find that seems interesting.