Georgia Firearm Forums - Georgia Packing banner
1 - 20 of 29 Posts

·
Registered
Joined
·
5,215 Posts
Let's see, I guess that means the perp has ten days to sue the clerk for standing his ground...
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
3,593 Posts
At least in this report he is caled a robber. The WSB coverage called him the Victim
 

·
Sledgehammer
Joined
·
4,813 Posts
While I'm not a fan of liberal media bias, it is not incorrect to call someone who is shot the victim of a gunshot wound. The fact that the shooting was justified, and that the recipient of the wound was committing a felony does not change the correctness of the usage.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
3,593 Posts
Yes it is. It is bad reporting. The person being robbed is the victim. Other terms would be correct lke alleged perp.
 

·
Moderator
Joined
·
69,744 Posts
Discussion Starter · #6 ·
jrm, I suppose he might also be the victim of an arrest and the victim of a jail sentence?

:p
 

·
Sledgehammer
Joined
·
4,813 Posts
Well, yes he would.

From Webster's New Collegiate Dictionary:

Definition 2: one that is acted upon and usually adversely affected by a force or agent.

So, someone who is shot, arrested, and jailed is a victim in each case.

While some may not like the use of the word because of its connotations, it nonetheless is correctly used in those contexts.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
5,215 Posts
While the use of the word "Victim" may be technically correct, it is none the less still wrong from a responsible journalism perspective. The liberal media use the word victim to imply that this criminal had his rights violated. Consider it this way, they would not have used the same verbiage if the perp had been shot by a cop in the same situation. They would call him the "suspect" or at the very least "alleged perpetrator"
 

·
Sledgehammer
Joined
·
4,813 Posts
USMC - Retired said:
While the use of the word "Victim" may be technically correct, it is none the less still wrong from a responsible journalism perspective. The liberal media use the word victim to imply that this criminal had his rights violated. Consider it this way, they would not have used the same verbiage if the perp had been shot by a cop in the same situation. They would call him the "suspect" or at the very least "alleged perpetrator"
Really? It's responsible journalism to refer to someone who got shot as a suspect, just because the person who shot him accuses him of a crime? Seems to me the responsible thing to do would be to interview both people (shooter and "recipient of bullet," and report on what those people said. Then the "recipient of the news" can determine for itself what to think.

What if someone went into a pawn shop and was interested in pawning a knife, and the clerk pulled out a gun and shot the knife pawner? Then the clerk told police that the pawner pulled a knife, so he shot the pawner. Then the media, without even attempting to interview the pawner, started referring to him as the suspect. Would that be responsible? I don't really think so.

My point is that I've only seen one side of this story (the clerk's). It might have happened just as the clerk described it. It might not have. I don't know. Do you?

The liberal media use the word victim to imply that this criminal had his rights violated.
Again, really? I don't draw that inference (i.e., that the "criminal" -- what happened to innocent until proven guilty? -- had his rights violated). I conclude that he was shot. Again, I don't know if the shooting was justified. I would like to think the matter will be investigated and, if appropriate, run through our justice system, to determine things like that. In the meantime, I'm perfectly content to have the recipient of the bullet referred to as a gun shot victim (which is exactly what he will be referred to in his medical records, because health care workers don't generally make political statements when they chart such things).
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
5,215 Posts
A man who attempted to rob a DeKalb County pawn shop was in stable condition Tuesday after being shot by an employee, a police spokesman said.
The 21-year-old man, armed with a knife, entered Evans Mill Pawn Shop and tried to hold up the store Tuesday morning, Dekalb County police Officer Herschel Grangent said. The man attacked one of the store's employees, who pulled out a gun and shot the man several times, Grangent said.
Seems to me that the police are the ones telling he press that this guy was breaking the law and thusly a criminal. Once again I point out that if it had been a LEO that shot this guy he would not be refered to as a "victim" by the press regardless of Websters definition of the word.
 

·
Moderator
Joined
·
69,744 Posts
Discussion Starter · #11 ·
A suave, debonaire, good-looking, and polite robber was shot by a mean, ugly neanderthal pawn shop owner with a wart on his nose today.
 

·
Moderator
Joined
·
69,744 Posts
Discussion Starter · #12 ·
Shot the man several times?

The red-neck pawnshop owner shot the young black victim several times without hesitation. The young black victim was armed only with a small, dull knife, but the pawn shop owner began spraying bullets . . .
 

·
Sledgehammer
Joined
·
4,813 Posts
USMC - Retired said:
Seems to me that the police are the ones telling he press that this guy was breaking the law and thusly a criminal.
Fortunately, we live in a society where the police don't get to decide who is a criminal and who is not.
 

·
Moderator
Joined
·
69,744 Posts
Discussion Starter · #15 ·
jrm said:
What if someone went into a pawn shop and was interested in pawning a knife, and the clerk pulled out a gun and shot the knife pawner? Then the clerk told police that the pawner pulled a knife, so he shot the pawner.
Well, actually, the story says he came in with the knife and the pawn shop owner did not shoot him until he was "attacked" by the robber. That is, he did not shoot him for "having a knife." Nor did he shoot him for robbing. All indications at this point are that he shot him in a desperate extreme - attempting to avoid a stab or slice wound.

jrm said:
Again, really? I don't draw that inference (i.e., that the "criminal" -- what happened to innocent until proven guilty?)
Nothing happened to it. That is a jury standard.

The point here is that news articles generally have a point to make. While a word chosen may be technically accurate as one definition you might find in a dictionary, the word is chosen to convey a meaning. In the case of firearms, the mainstream media typically likes to play up criminal uses of firearms (or misuses of firearms, accidents, and the like) while downplaying or ignoring the beneficial uses of firearms (unless by a police officer). I have a copy of John Lott's The Bias Against Guns should you wish to check out an actual study of this very issue.

It is not just firearms. The same thing happens when covering anything connected to "Islam." It often happens on issues of race as well. Sometimes news articles tell outright lies. More often, though, the approach is subtle, such as referring to an armed robber as a "victim" once the robbery "victim" defends himself.

It tends to make it sound like a crime was committed against the robber.

Asking whether we know this was a good self defense shooting really does not change the point. There is no evidence at this point that anything different occurred than what was stated. Thus, it is improper to attempt to influence the reader into doubting whether the use of force was lawful or necessary.
 

·
Sledgehammer
Joined
·
4,813 Posts
I am no more influenced by calling the bullet recipient a victim when the facts are as otherwise reported than I am by calling him a criminal when the facts are as otherwise reported.
 

·
Moderator
Joined
·
69,744 Posts
Discussion Starter · #17 ·
I am not influenced by it, either. I suspect nobody on this site is.

I am also not influenced by the use of the word "insurgent" to describe those who purposefully wait until children gather around soldiers to set off a bomb.

It is not me, though, that I am talking about - or even readers in general. It is the intent behind the use of the word. They have an agenda, and that is why it is used.

Whether it is successful is another topic.
 

·
Premium Member
Joined
·
8,460 Posts
It is not just firearms. The same thing happens when covering anything connected to "Islam." It often happens on issues of race as well. Sometimes news articles tell outright lies. More often, though, the approach is subtle, such as referring to an armed robber as a "victim" once the robbery "victim" defends himself.
Don't forget humans "causing" global warming (despite millions of years of climate changes when humans did not exist). Any computer simulation of events 50 - 100 years from now goes to the press a prediction of the future instead of correctly stating that it is a simulation of what might happen IF everything entered into the model were to be 100% correct from now until then (that is assuming they even got the model correct to enter the data into).
 

·
Sledgehammer
Joined
·
4,813 Posts
Malum Prohibitum said:
jrm said:
Again, really? I don't draw that inference (i.e., that the "criminal" -- what happened to innocent until proven guilty?)
Nothing happened to it. That is a jury standard.
I disagree. It is a legal standard that applies to all (not just juries). It applies to judges. It applies to prosecutors. It applies to witnesses. It even applies to plaintiffs and defendants in a civil defamation case (as in, when the plaintiff sues the defendant for branding the plaintiff a criminal when the defendant has not been convicted of a crime).
 
1 - 20 of 29 Posts
Top