Two men entered a Vilas Avenue apartment Sunday night and robbed the three men inside, according to Madison police.I suspect the news media are avoiding what I've termed "counter-Trayvonism," but why tell us the gun is black?
Police said the two robbers were in their teens to early 20s with medium builds and they entered the apartment in the 1200 block of Vilas Avenue at about 11 p.m. One of them carried a black semi-automatic handgun and they ordered the victims to the ground....
September 9, 2013
"At least we know the color of the gun."
Comment posted on this Madison, Wisconsin news report:
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
Posts
32 comments:
What are you pretending not to know?
Omitting the obvious ethnicity or race of perpetrators is hardly a new trend Althouse. The Wilmington News Journal [in your old state] has been mocked for it for years by the blog named The Colossus of Rhodey.
because one of the characteristics that all 'assault weapons' share is that they are black. Oh, and scary. and have big 'clips'.
I have a purple gun.
I guess I should avoid committing crimes with it, as it would be easy to spot.
A black gun is more sinister. Subconscious racism at work here.
I just started seeing this in the Hartford (CT) Courant (on-line). It's striking how the description includes details of Tatoos and shoes but not skin color. It has to be post-Trayvonism. But why do this? I first noticed this when seeing a robbery in a local convenience store. The later surveillance video showed a white robber. Perhaps though the statistics will end up with a flurry of black or dark skinned suspects and one can't have that.
Why tell us the gun is black?
Because guns kill people! Better get that gun off the streets, and now, thanks to media reports, we know what it looks like.
It might help identify the perps. Not all guns are black.
Because the GUN is GUILTY!
Color of semiauto is helpful. Color of perp is not helpful.
The news media in general is not much better than Pravda; to understand fully, just concentrate on what is not said.
If a description of a suspect is missing, he's black.
If someone commits a religious atrocity, and the religion is not mentioned, he's Muslim.
If the political party of a politician accused of wrongdoing is not mentioned, he's a Democrat.
Should be: "...an african-american semi-automatic handgun..."
I don't see the comment over there. Is there something wrong with my browser or is it gone?
I have a purple gun.
Did you buy it from Prince?
I suspect the news media are avoiding what I've termed "counter-Trayvonism,"
Why not just call it what it really is, "dishonesty"?
We don't need arrogant jerks, regardless of their job description, "protecting" us from the facts.
Why? To insure that the readers do not think it was one of the pink handguns recently sold to many feminists and real women.
The focus is shifted to guns. The focus is always shifted to guns. Because guns kill people. While the people who wield the guns are innocent victims of the gun's propensity to commit murder.
It's the old "man bites dog" thing. See, a black GUN is unusual and therefore newsworthy because most guns are . . . . Oh never mind!
The press has been doing this for years, pre-p.c. in fact.
The African American community has foiled the p.c. press by deliberately naming their children in a way that identifies their race. No need to name the race of the Trayvons.
The problem is the media has been so obfuscatory, so eager to conceal "The Color of Crime" in news on crime and in suspect descriptions that public has almost totally defaulted to the worst possible outcome (for liberals).
Anytime a suspect description is not given, the vast majority of the public just fills in the blank with a mental image of a black thug doing it. Even when a crime is committed and there are actually no witnesses to any suspects or their description. An assumption is made the "media knows the perp(s) are black and are just shutting up about it.
The gun is of the color that absorbs all colors of the spectrum.
No more racist gun.
"If a description of a suspect is missing, he's black.
If someone commits a religious atrocity, and the religion is not mentioned, he's Muslim.
If the political party of a politician accused of wrongdoing is not mentioned, he's a Democrat."
An American is a white American male. Bush was the President of the United States, not the white President of the United States. Obama is the first black President of the United States.
News are reports of anomalies. What the MSM are saying is, it was rare that suspects are not black that they have to point out their ethnic description, religious fanatics are rarely non-Muslims, corrupt politicians are always Democrats. Quite a bunch of right wing racist bigots, aren't they?
Black guns are eeevil. That's the color of assault weapons. Which puts me in mind of a tee shirt I saw a guy wearing at the last gun show. Under a silhouette of an AR-15 it read, "Is it because I'm black?"
They apparently did not commit their crime with a pink AR15.
Crikey, it's 92 degrees in Madison? Putting the flame into a Midwest autumn, I guess.
Black guns are NOT evil! I love mine. It's so big, and hard, and...and BLACK!!!!(Jeez I sound like Titus)
Obviously someone filed a report to the police describing the color of the gun and the build of the assailants. It's hard to believe they didn't notice the skin color of the perps. It's a safe bet the assailants were not Caucasian.
One adjective beclouds the other.
Who identified the handgun as "semi-automatic"? Besides "according to police." That's what I want to know.
My favorite Wilmington News Journal story was the era where Delaware had no gangs. The Yea Yo Boys, accused in multiple mass attacks in city parks, were a "group of neighborhood men" according to News Journal policy.
Because referring to the guys who called themselves boys as the boys would have been racist, if the Yea Yo crew were predominantly African-American, which the NJ could neither confirm nor deny. And calling pipe-toting thugs "a gang" would prejudice readers and unnecessarily inflame tensions.
Why? Because there's no National Association for the Advancement of Colored Guns, that's why!
This isn't a rejection of "counter-Trayvon-ism".
This is business as usual for the Media that only see's race when its white hispanics shooting blacks. The racist attack on a non-black shooter of a black guy is their stock in trade.
Blacks shooting whites, or beating them up for being white, is "The Big Mystery", deemed invisible by the Media and will not be pointed out as a problem.
I don't think you can properly call what they're doing "avoiding." They would never engage in counter-Trayvonism because it's not in their worldview to see these situations in those terms.
I wonder if more crimes are committed with a black gun vs. a white gun.
Post a Comment