What happened today is a tragedy. It will get to the point where TV stations hire their own security people to escort reporters on live shots. That day is coming.

 

Three things stand out from today's incident:

 

1.) Vicki Gardner. Do you know who she is without Googling her name? Most of the media would have you believe there were only two shooting victims today. Vicki Gardner was the women being interviewed who was shot in the back. She is still hospitalized. It's a shame she is being minimalized in the reporting.

 

2.) Politicians are using today to call for gun control once again. Today wasn't a gun control issue. It's a mental health issue. From what I have gathered, the shooter displayed signs of mental illness in recent years. The mental health system is broken. It's needs fixing fast.

 

3.) Hey journalists. Welcome to the world of being a victim. There were tweets today from journalists upset that videos of the shooting were posted. They are upset with the NY Times cover of the shooting. They are upset that the media keeps posting pictures of Bryce Williams instead of the victims. The same media that continually posts pictures of the Colorado theater shooter. The same media that showed the video of Eric Garner getting choked out. Video of cops being shot. The same ones who will show the live picture of the mangled car before family has been notified.

 

It's different when it's your "family". I get that. I hope after today, journalists understand that and bottle up today's feelings and then use it when covering future tragedies.

 

I'm on board with you on points 2 and 3. But on 1, I'm going to have to differ. It's not like the woman being interviewed is being "minimized" through some conscious effort or something. The two people who were killed are the bigger story because, well, they're dead, and Gardner isn't. And, Gardner wasn't the actual target.

 

Good, bad or indifferent, "death" will always be the bigger story than "in the hospital recovering from injuries." That's as basic as it gets in the news business.

And for people who don't understand why a hate crime is distinguished from any other crime, it has to do with the severity of the punishments. Hate crimes carry a more severe punishment in an attempt to prevent a larger racial (or any social bias) rift to form.

I would assume most understand the logic behind. Doesn't change the fact that it is idiotic logic.

So why is it not a hate crime.

And by the way I hate how hate crimes are labeled.

 

If you hate it then why do you care if this is labeled as one? Anyone that is concerned whether or not this gets labeled as a hate crime has their priorities all screwed up.

I agree that it is a non-issue from a legality standpoint, but I also would be hesitant to dismiss the importance of labeling it a hate crime. It currently seems like a majority of the population (if not a majority, then I'm referring to the more vocal population, via social media whom appear to be in the majority) is under the impression that a hate crime can never involve a person of color infringing upon a white persons rights. Those same people believe that a person of color can never be racist; a belief forged from utter ignorance.

 

While I have little faith that those who believe this will ever changed their ways, it is important that this be labelled as a hate crime from a social standpoint: that yes, in fact, a person of color is subject to the same hate crime laws that white people are subject to.

 

I agree.

If you hate it then why do you care if this is labeled as one? Anyone that is concerned whether or not this gets labeled as a hate crime has their priorities all screwed up.

 

Why do I care?

 

Because I hate double standards.

If it had been

white guy killing 2 blacks= hate crime

2 gays being killed=hate crime

2 Muslims being killed=hate crime

 

but a gay black guy who even wrote about the hate he had kills 2 whites and its just a mental issue.

 

Its a double standard.

 

These so called knock out games where the blacks target whites, is that not a crime of hate since they are targeting whites and sometimes killing them?

As a general rule I think hate crime debate is silly and a knee jerk reaction - both ways.

 

However, in this particular case, it's personal between the two parties so I would rule out the hate crime aspect.

If demanding that legal rulings hold some level of consistency, then I guess my priorities are "screwed up." I don't think they are, and in fact think that you lack a level of understanding of how legal precedents are used in future cases, but you're entitled to your opinion.

As a general rule I think hate crime debate is silly and a knee jerk reaction - both ways.

 

However, in this particular case, it's personal between the two parties so I would rule out the hate crime aspect.

 

I agree whole hardheartedly.

 

But when a white person does something against anyone its almost certain to be labeled a hate crime.

But when a white person does something against anyone its almost certain to be labeled a hate crime.

 

Do you genuinely not understand why that's the case?

As a general rule I think hate crime debate is silly and a knee jerk reaction - both ways.

 

However, in this particular case, it's personal between the two parties so I would rule out the hate crime aspect.

 

I know I asked this a couple times yesterday, and I guess I missed the answer, or missed when reading the articles, but what was his personal beef with the reporter?

I agree whole hardheartedly.

 

But when a white person does something against anyone its almost certain to be labeled a hate crime.

 

Not if there is a personal relationship. Give me one example that I'm obviously missing.

I know I asked this a couple times yesterday, and I guess I missed the answer, or missed when reading the articles, but what was his personal beef with the reporter?

 

Reporter: He claimed she made racist comments.

Camerman: He was mad that the camerman went to HR an file some sort of claim against him.

Reporter: He claimed she made racist comments.

Camerman: He was mad that the camerman went to HR an file some sort of claim against him.

 

Thanks. I missed that.

Thanks. I missed that.

 

He tweeted it.

Not if there is a personal relationship. Give me one example that I'm obviously missing.

 

Im not saying you are missing anything. Im just saying I agree with the dumb hate crime rules. I also feel its always a double standard and that is my argument.