ADVERTISEMENT

Shooting of 7-year old, mistaken suspect

EagleHawk

HR All-American
Jan 16, 2002
4,906
3,621
113
Can you imagine the outrage if the original suspect was a young black man, someone presented a tip that it was a white middle-aged man, and it took the cops three days to investigate because it didn't make sense?

King said he received a tip about Black and Woodruffe's involvement the same day police released the sketch of the suspect, but he and Sheriff Ed Gonzalez couldn't corroborate the story.

"I reported this to the Sheriff immediately, because the witness was so compelling, but the sheriff and I both just could not make sense of it," he said, later adding, "We received so many bad tips, and so much misinformation, it just took us three days to solve it after the initial report was made."

http://www.msn.com/en-us/news/crime...e-suspects-in-her-death/ar-BBRVNxq?ocid=ientp
 
what.gif
 
Eye Witness testimony can and usually is very, very inaccurate.

'Member that time everyone in the country was looking out for "white vans", when people were being randomly sniped at DC area gas stations?

White vans were everywhere....

Then, it turned out to be an ex-Army guy and his 17 yr old stepson, shooting people thru a hole drilled thru the trunk of a Chevy Impala....
 
Not only was the shooter black, but the mother knew the shooter and lied to the police- saying the shooter was white

 
  • Like
Reactions: HeathForrester
Not only was the shooter black, but the mother knew the shooter and lied to the police- saying the shooter was white


That pretty well expresses the undertones the story was carrying across a number of popular media sources.

"The family thinks it was racially motivated"

Because...they were black, and the accused was white. That's all you need in 2019.

Lots of left/media were hedging that way since they described the shooter as white. (of course, turns out they had the wrong individual)

This is partly narrative fitting. A portion of the left loves watch-dogging this stuff. There's a cottage industry around it.

Partly profitable attention getting.

If you ever watch CNN, they're all over white on black crime. It gets lots of attention. More ad revenue, good for the bottom line.

Nevermind that they're helping to cultivate what is quite possibly a misleading worldview.
 
That pretty well expresses the undertones the story was carrying across a number of popular media sources.

"The family thinks it was racially motivated"

Because...they were black, and the accused was white. That's all you need in 2019.

Lots of left/media were hedging that way since they described the shooter as white. (of course, turns out they had the wrong individual)

This is partly narrative fitting. A portion of the left loves watch-dogging this stuff. There's a cottage industry around it.

Partly profitable attention getting.

If you ever watch CNN, they're all over white on black crime. It gets lots of attention. More ad revenue, good for the bottom line.

Nevermind that they're helping to cultivate what is quite possibly a misleading worldview.
Congrats for lating a day with this handle.
 
Not only was the shooter black, but the mother knew the shooter and lied to the police- saying the shooter was white


This story is an excellent example why we shouldn't jump to conclusions, especially as it relates to emotionally charged subjects like race relations, when an event is first reported. This was splashed pretty heavily at first as a hate crime, etc, with a white assailant, etc, ...when it turns out that it really was 2 black guys.

There was even one US Congresswoman essentially fanning the flames...you just can't go off of the initial reports...way too many people want to make everything viral and hit the drama machine before knowing facts.
 
It was a hate crime up until the point they find the killer and he was black. That should really make us sit back and think about how society views life in general

Honest question...are the people that were clamoring for it be considered as a hate crime still doing so now...now that two black men have arrested for it?

If not, we should never pay attention to them again as they are the REAL racists.
 
It'll be interesting to see what comes of this tragedy. Initially, when the family said it was a white man, it started to pick up steam nationally as a hate crime. Rallies were being held and planned -- even civil rights leaders and other black celebrities were beginning to speak up about it. And certain media outlets seemed to be salivating, hoping like hell it was a white on black shooting. CNN was calling it a racially motivated attack without a suspect even in custody ... just based on the victim's mother's statement.

So now that it has been found that 2 black males are responsible, what happens? Today CNN called it a tragedy that was likely a case of mistaken identity, meaning the shooters LIKELY targeted the wrong vehicle. If 2 white males were arrested, would they still call it a case of "mistaken identity" or would they call it a hate crime without any evidence that it was, in fact, racially motivated?

What I'm getting at is, I think this tragedy is a perfect example of the media racially dividing this country. Race baiting, if you will.

A tragedy nonetheless.
 
It's interesting that the fox news watchers keep repeating 'the family said it was a white man" and ignore the other half a dozen witnesses the police listed the led to them releasing the sketch. I guess that doesn't fit the narrative. Let's pile on the poor family of the dead girl because the real killers turned out to be black!
 
This was a hate crime. No one hates black people more than other black people. Almost all violence including murder within the black community is committed by black people.
 
  • Like
Reactions: HeathForrester
the red truck that they initially thought was the shooter had a white driver but he was speeding away because he had heard shots and was trying to escape the area not because he was the shooter.. I think that led to a lot of confusion.
 
This story is an excellent example why we shouldn't jump to conclusions, especially as it relates to emotionally charged subjects like race relations, when an event is first reported. This was splashed pretty heavily at first as a hate crime, etc, with a white assailant, etc, ...when it turns out that it really was 2 black guys.

There was even one US Congresswoman essentially fanning the flames...you just can't go off of the initial reports...way too many people want to make everything viral and hit the drama machine before knowing facts.
It doesn't matter now, it was out there that way, people read it, spread it, tweeted it, posted it etc... therefore its now accepted by a large number of people that will never care to verify the actual occurrence. And no one really gaf
 
  • Like
Reactions: HeathForrester
It's interesting that the fox news watchers keep repeating 'the family said it was a white man" and ignore the other half a dozen witnesses the police listed the led to them releasing the sketch. I guess that doesn't fit the narrative. Let's pile on the poor family of the dead girl because the real killers turned out to be black!

While it may be true that POLICE had other witnesses, the CNNs of the world only wanted to focus on -- and were hoping for -- a white male being the shooter. The poor girl's mother sat there on TV saying it was a white man who did the shooting ... that they saw him, and he was white.

And regarding your comment about Fox watchers, I'm not one of them. Just someone who can see things for what they are. Who can see and read through the BS the media tries to feed us.
 
Opportunistic Outrage
Anger about comparatively rare white-on-black hate lets advocates ignore a far more pervasive reality.

https://www.city-journal.org/jazmine-barnes-murder



Anti-cop activist Shaun King says that his involvement in the campaign around the Jazmine Barnes murder was not driven by reports that a white man had killed the seven-year-old girl, who was gunned down in Houston on December 30. According to Barnes’s mother and 15-year-old sister, the white driver of a pickup truck had pulled up next to the family’s car before opening fire. The accusation set off a frenzy of hate-crime allegations and blanket coverage by the New York Times. King offered a $100,000 reward to anyone who located the suspect.

As it turned out, Jazmine Barnes was killed by two black men, who opened fire on her mother’s car because they thought that they were targeting enemies of their gang. King passed along a tip about the real killers to the Houston police, and now says that he merely “internalized the pain of the family and tried to search as if it were my own child who was killed.” Race, in other words, had nothing to do with his activism.

It’s worth remembering, though, the many other black children who have been victims of drive-by shootings without leading King to launch a national crusade.

A sampling: in March 2015, a six-year-old boy was killed in a drive-by shooting on West Florissant Avenue in St. Louis, as Black Lives Matter protesters were converging on the Ferguson, Missouri, Police Department to demand the resignation of the entire department. In August 2015, a nine-year-old girl was killed by a bullet from a drive-by shooting in Ferguson while doing her homework in her bedroom, blocks from the Black Lives Matter rioting thoroughfare. Five children were shot in Cleveland over the 2015 Fourth of July weekend. A seven-year-old boy was killed in Chicago that same weekend by a bullet intended for his father. In Cincinnati, in July 2015, a four-year-old girl was shot in the head and a six-year-old girl was left paralyzed and partially blind from two separate drive-by shootings. In Cleveland, three children five and younger were killed in September 2015, leading the black police chief to break down in tears and ask why the community only protests shootings of blacks when the perpetrator is a cop. In November 2015, a nine-year-old in Chicago was lured into an alley and killed by his father’s gang enemies; the father refused to cooperate with the police. All told, ten children under the age of ten were killed in Baltimore in 2015; twelve victims were between the age of ten and seventeen.

In 2016, a three-year-old girl in Baltimore was partially paralyzed by a drive-by shooting. In Chicago in 2016, two dozen children under the age of 12 were shot in drive-bys, including a three-year-old boy mowed down on Father’s Day 2016 who is now paralyzed for life and a ten-year-old boy shot in August; his pancreas, intestines, kidney, and spleen were torn apart. A Jacksonville 22-month-old was shot to death by a passing car last June. In September, three men killed three-year-old Azalya Anderson in a drive-by in Sacramento, and a week before Christmas in Bridgeport, a 12-year-old boy was shot and killed on his way home from the candy store in a drive-by shooting.

Why did King let these shootings of black children go by without responding as he did to Jazmine Barnes’s murder? Could it be because the perpetrators were black? You could end all white shootings of black children tomorrow and it would have zero effect on the death rate of black children by homicide, because such white-on-black shootings are extremely rare. Moral abominations, like the 2015 Charleston church massacre by white supremacist Dylann Roof, are aberrations that belong to the outermost lunatic fringe of American society. The country’s revulsion at the Charleston carnage was immediate and universal, resulting in a movement to banish the Confederate flag, embraced by Roof as a white supremacist symbol, from official sites.

As for interracial violence generally, blacks disproportionately commit it. Between 2012 and 2015, there were 631,830 violent interracial victimizations, excluding homicide, between blacks and whites, according to the Bureau of Justice Statistics. Blacks, who make up 13 percent of the U.S. population, committed 85.5 percent of those victimizations, or 540,360 felonious assaults on whites, while whites, 61 percent of the population, committed 14.4 percent, or 91,470 felonious assaults on blacks. Regarding threats to blacks from the police, a police officer is 18.5 times more likely to be killed by a black male than an unarmed black male is to be killed by a police officer.

If Shaun King and other Black Lives Matter activists really want to save black children from the trauma of urban violence, they should put their efforts into rebuilding inner-city culture—above all, by revalorizing a married father as the best gift a mother can give her child. Fantasies about white violence against “black bodies” are a distraction from what is actually happening on American streets.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Old_wrestling_fan
Can't even laugh at the stupidity on display here. If a husband kills his wife...don't you think the go-to explanation would be a domestic dispute? It might turn out ot be a case of mistaken identity, you know.

A random white guy shoots a little black girl...yeah, the first thought is that it's racially motivated. Kinda like when a Muslim goes on a rampage and it's immediately assumed to be terrorism related. A white guy plows into a group of people protesting white supremacists...probably a white supremacist.

And, BTW, didn't multiple "credible" witnesses id the shooter as a white guy speeding off in a truck? Didn't one even follow the guy to get a good look at him? If so, it's kinda hard to see how the mother bears responsibility for the mistaken identification. Or were they all lying? Did I read the story wrong?
 
Honest question...are the people that were clamoring for it be considered as a hate crime still doing so now...now that two black men have arrested for it?

If not, we should never pay attention to them again as they are the REAL racists.

Your last part isn't very logical. Why would somebody label a black person shooting a black person in a case of mistaken identify be considered a hate crime? The only way I could see this is if the shooter was trying to kill somebody with a motive that qualifies as a hate crime but shot the wrong person.
 
While it may be true that POLICE had other witnesses, the CNNs of the world only wanted to focus on -- and were hoping for -- a white male being the shooter. The poor girl's mother sat there on TV saying it was a white man who did the shooting ... that they saw him, and he was white.

And regarding your comment about Fox watchers, I'm not one of them. Just someone who can see things for what they are. Who can see and read through the BS the media tries to feed us.

The police had multiple witnesses that identified a white guy in a truck and released a composite sketch. What should CNN, etc do? Speculate that it was really a black guy?
 
  • Like
Reactions: Joes Place
Can't even laugh at the stupidity on display here. If a husband kills his wife...don't you think the go-to explanation would be a domestic dispute? It might turn out ot be a case of mistaken identity, you know.

A random white guy shoots a little black girl...yeah, the first thought is that it's racially motivated. Kinda like when a Muslim goes on a rampage and it's immediately assumed to be terrorism related. A white guy plows into a group of people protesting white supremacists...probably a white supremacist.

And, BTW, didn't multiple "credible" witnesses id the shooter as a white guy speeding off in a truck? Didn't one even follow the guy to get a good look at him? If so, it's kinda hard to see how the mother bears responsibility for the mistaken identification. Or were they all lying? Did I read the story wrong?

Well of course a white shooter would be more suspect of a racial motive in this case. (as compared to black on black)

Of course:

1) Lets not jump to conclusions. There is push back when a middle-eastern fellow goes on a rampage. Don't jump to conclusions. Jumping to conclusions is much, much more permissible when the identity is "white guy." Enough so that I'm compelled to comment on the silliness of it all. Why not strive to just... get it right?

2) An event like this is then held up as indicative of a "major problem" in this country. Contextually . . . thou doth protest too much.

It's the magnitude of response that I'm griping about. That's where they're going off the rails. And it isn't this case; it's lots of cases and overall tenor from that crowd.
 
Last edited:
Honest question...are the people that were clamoring for it be considered as a hate crime still doing so now...now that two black men have arrested for it?

If not, we should never pay attention to them again as they are the REAL racists.
Remember the wolf did show up. People always take the wrong lesson from that story.
 
  • Like
Reactions: tarheelbybirth
Your last part isn't very logical. Why would somebody label a black person shooting a black person in a case of mistaken identify be considered a hate crime? The only way I could see this is if the shooter was trying to kill somebody with a motive that qualifies as a hate crime but shot the wrong person.

As initially reported, and it was reported very actively, it wasn't a case of mistaken identity...it was a hate crime. A hate crime because the initial report was that a white guy did it. Even IF it had been a white shooter, no one had any valid reason to label it as a hate crime as they clearly didn't have any facts to base that on.

Those that jumped on the "hate" crime bandwagon displayed their racial biases...ironically while pointing their fingers at others for being racist.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Chuck C
It was only a national story when the white guy was a suspect.
Well, that's wrong for a couple of reasons. The pretty girl that was killed in Iowa was a national story before we knew who killed her - because she was young, white and pretty. There are lots of missing young black girls that never make the news. Bites both ways.
 
  • Like
Reactions: SchmittyHawks32
As initially reported, and it was reported very actively, it wasn't a case of mistaken identity...it was a hate crime. A hate crime because the initial report was that a white guy did it. Even IF it had been a white shooter, no one had any valid reason to label it as a hate crime as they clearly didn't have any facts to base that on.

Those that jumped on the "hate" crime bandwagon displayed their racial biases...ironically while pointing their fingers at others for being racist.

Anybody that said it was definitely a hate crime without knowing all the facts was wrong to do so. Speculating that it was a hate crime is different. As Tarheel noted, people speculate on motives based on information available all the time. That information included race/ethnicity of the victims and suspects.
 
Well, that's wrong for a couple of reasons. The pretty girl that was killed in Iowa was a national story before we knew who killed her - because she was young, white and pretty. There are lots of missing young black girls that never make the news. Bites both ways.
I don't know what bites both ways means. I'm agreeing with you, lots of young kids are killed by stray bullets in poor comunities, it doesn't make national news.
 
Could someone post a link to the apparently breathless coverage by the media of this as a certifiable hate crime? I've looked through a dozen stories and can't find it. There was speculation that it might be racially motivated given the uptick in white supremacist activity and the apparent random nature of the attack but even that was muted.

TIA
 
Could someone post a link to the apparently breathless coverage by the media of this as a certifiable hate crime? I've looked through a dozen stories and can't find it. There was speculation that it might be racially motivated given the uptick in white supremacist activity and the apparent random nature of the attack but even that was muted.

TIA

Of course major outlets weren't foolishly calling this a hate crime. They were just prominently featuring the story since it seemed promising given the early information that the shooter was white.

On the social media end of things... you had prominent social activists and athletes getting involved.
 
Could someone post a link to the apparently breathless coverage by the media of this as a certifiable hate crime? I've looked through a dozen stories and can't find it. There was speculation that it might be racially motivated given the uptick in white supremacist activity and the apparent random nature of the attack but even that was muted.

TIA
It was circulated by a lot of major publications on social media and discussed. The mother was pretty vocal that it was by a white guy and racially motivated.
 
It was circulated by a lot of major publications on social media and discussed. The mother was pretty vocal that it was by a white guy and racially motivated.
The mother had her 7 year old killed in front of her and when she looked up saw some random white dude she didn't know driving off. If you weren't so tied up in your own victimhood you might understand hers.
 
It was circulated by a lot of major publications on social media and discussed. The mother was pretty vocal that it was by a white guy and racially motivated.
And again - and again - MULTIPLE witnesses identified the shooter as a white male who sped away. One witness was so sure, he chased the supposed shooter.

Question 1 - Why do you...the general "you" taking in all the others in this thread... keep harping on the fact that the mother - and pay very close attention here - saw the very same damn thing as everyone else who provided eyewitness accounts to the police?

Question 2 - And if you're a black mother who just thought she saw a random unidentified white male firing into your car and then racing off...what - exactly - would be your first thought?

I'm serious...can you please respond on point.
 
Congrats for lating a day with this handle.
You possess a unique knack for staying on topic and asking all the pertinent questions that would only come to the minds of Johnny Cochran or F Lee Bailey. Oh wait.....:rolleyes:
 
Anybody that said it was definitely a hate crime without knowing all the facts was wrong to do so. Speculating that it was a hate crime is different. As Tarheel noted, people speculate on motives based on information available all the time. That information included race/ethnicity of the victims and suspects.

Would the same people that were labeling this as a hate crime when it was thought that the shooter was white also have done so if the initial reports were of a black shooter? If not, why not? Do whites have the corner on the market of hate? Is every interracial shooting a hate crime? Are no inter race shootings capable of being a hate crime?

Why was it assumed that a white shooter would be guilty of a hate crime? He could have had any, or all, of the same motivations, or no motivations, as a black shooter, many of which wouldn't necessarily indicate "hate".
 
The mother had her 7 year old killed in front of her and when she looked up saw some random white dude she didn't know driving off. If you weren't so tied up in your own victimhood you might understand hers.

I don't fault the mother, I fault the senationalized media for click baits and page views.
 
You can’t argue that a narrative was being pushed by everyone in that community when it was assumed it was a white guy. The damn congresswoman openly called it a hate crime.

This story will now go away and anyone who points out that there is too much crime in the area will be viewed as a racist
 
ADVERTISEMENT

Latest posts

ADVERTISEMENT