This is how black people can’t be racists in the US.
African-Americans can be bigots … but they can’t use the state or any of its accoutrement as a weapon against white people or as a shield to the acts of white people.
If you say things like that, you are just inviting people to start looking for differences between the cases.
The Mar 23 case involved two cases of assault, while the 24 did not.
The Mar 23 case was first degree burglary (up to 25 years), the 24 case was second degree burglary (up to 10 years), with the main charge underage possession of alcohol.
The Mar 23 case involved defendants aged from 24 to 50 years old, while the Mar 24 defendants are all 19 year old college freshmen.
The Mar 24 defendants were on the college wrestling team and thus relatively well known. We don’t know anything about the occupations of the Mar 23 people.
The Mar 23 defendants allegedly stole a TV, cash, a cellphone and were trying to steal a gun. The Mar 24 defendants allegedly stole ‘clothing and a briefcase’.
Isn’t the simple explanation what Fang said: in one case, they’re all under 21 and have recently available and still-valid yearbook photos, while in the other case they’re 24-50?
Wouldn’t it have looked absurd to have yearbook photos of, say, the 24 and 29 year old, but mugshot photos of the 36 and 50 year olds in a single story? That would have looked like they were implying only the two with mugshots were arrested, or something of the sort?
That is just stupid. Extremely, incredibly, ‘black people need the help of white people’ stupid. I don’t understand why there needs to be further segregation in an issue with segregation at its core, what is it possibly helping?
I agree, this smacks of racism, but it also smacks of lazy journalism, one of my pet peeves. The whole “we have to ask for the mugshots” thing is totally bogus. First, it’s the reporter’s job, that’s why they are paid. Second, all they did was lift the white guys’ photos from the yearbook, which is either means they asked for permission or violated someone else’s copyright.
I imagine that there are already plenty of folks involved who have looked at the distinctions between the two situations that show that the black guys are worse people.
I see photographs of seven innocent men, yet four of them already look guilty.
Why are mugshots publicly available anyway?
That’s like saying that affirmative action is an illegitimate way to attack race-based discrimination because it is discrimination based on race. Which strikes a lot of people as extremely, incredibly stupid.
The article on the wrestlers says that one of them “fought with officers.” If the black suspects had fought with officers, do you think they would be charged with assault (or something more serious) for doing so? It kind of seems like this white dude was undercharged compared to how he would have been charged if he was black. I kind of suspect this applies to the entire situation/other charges, as well.
So, the white students were found with items stolen from multiple residences and seven burglary reports were taken, the main charge is underage possession of alcohol? Too bad the black guys weren’t underage and drunk, I guess.
Elam said the wrestlers had in their possession items, including clothing and a briefcase, that are believed to have been taken during several burglaries. He said the police department took seven burglary reports.
While exact charges haven’t been determined yet, Elam said the three are facing some combination of charges of second-degree burglary and burglary from a vehicle.
They don’t take mugshots when you’re a college freshman?
Well known to whom? The general paper readership? If they’re so well known, why do they need pictures at all? Conversely, don’t we like mugshots of well known people (just ask Nick Nolte)?
You think seven burglary reports were filed over a briefcase and clothing? You think that a briefcase and clothing indicate that there were multiple burglaries?
Or maybe you just don’t understand that when “including” prefaces a list, it means that the list is not exhaustive.
Or maybe you’re just engaging in bad-faith argumentation.
A better question is why BB likes to run them, along with names, for some people charged with weird crimes.
Huh. And here I thought it was an invitation to start looking for differences between the empathy in the responses. I surely see some differences there.
- alleged (but you appear to have ‘forgot’ about innocent until proven… for 4 of the men)
- both groups had more charges involved, but you have ranked them in order of importance for us
- for some reason, 45 to 50 year olds are -more- responsible in the eyes of your law than 19 year olds
- being on a wrestling team is a way to ‘know’ more about someone, but only the humanizing hobbies of one group was relevant enough to report on,
- must I go on?
Notice the headline, too!
White People: “Oh, these three COLLEGE STUDENTS did something! It’s a shame that these college students did bad!”
Black People: “These people are burglars.”
You’re not supposed to make that much sense, but well said. Truce?
This is not as bad as it could have been, because it was in the newspaper, which nobody reads any more.
Because they’re owned by the people.
The error is the assumption those are yearbook photos. The key phrase is that the first story involved clearly-identified University Of Iowa wrestlers.
Go to the University of Iowa wrestling roster. Start clicking the various athletes’ links. Notice anything similar?
The photos are their athletic department photos. So it’s much, much easier to grab those images and use them because they know those are accurate photos rather than go through the trouble of pinging the police department to get a mug shot. I’m not sure I’d call it lazy journalism.
I can almost guarantee you that if it was three non-athletes, they’d have gone the mug shot route, simply because they couldn’t have confirmed the identities fast enough to reach through another medium.
Man, that is the definition of lazy journalism!
“It’s much easier to do this, so I’m going to do it” isn’t industrious journalism or thorough journalism!
How is that not fair use? Once you’ve released a yearbook into the world, it’s gonna be used for things other than revenue generation for the people who produced it.
I don’t actually care whether the law has determined that to be fair use or not; it should be. Not everything should be owned.
Does that mean I can take cars from the government motor pool out for a spin?
You know why they use mugshots? Because it’s confirmed that the photo is of the suspect (aka “we’re not gonna get sued”). If you can get a confirmed photo of the suspect (we’ll assume there was no doubt that the suspects were athletes from the University of Iowa) in a faster method, then I’d be hard pressed to find any journalist (especially on deadline, as it appears these stories were written) who wouldn’t take that faster method.
Additionally, what would getting the mug shots have added to the factual narrative of the story? Does investing the time and energy add any additional information to the facts of the story?