General Discussion
Related: Editorials & Other Articles, Issue Forums, Alliance Forums, Region ForumsSimplistic Question ...
Does it matter that the media, and all commentators, are framing the deaths in Libya as "Killed", when I have it from a family member of Smith, that they died from smoke inhalation?
IOW, does it matter that they died as a result of the crowds breach of the consulate; not at the hands of the crowd (intent)?
Of course, I recognize that it doesn't matter to the dead or their families; but IMHO the media framing is inflaming the situation.
= new reply since forum marked as read
Highlight:
NoneDon't highlight anything
5 newestHighlight 5 most recent replies
jdlh8894
(1,871 posts)on the people who died in the Towers of smoke inhalation, fire,or being crushed or trapped by debris? Were they killed?
1StrongBlackMan
(31,849 posts)At the end of American sporting events, football games, for example, for whatever reason, the fans (whether they won or lost) rush the field and tear down the goal posts. On the several occasions where someone died in the emotion-filled crush, the headlines don't read: "4 'murdered' (or 'killed') BY the crowd." That framing implies that the deaths were to purpose of the crowd rushing the field.
The purpose of the hijackers was to crush the planes into the towers to kill as many people as possible.
You may see this as splitting hairs ... I do not.
jdlh8894
(1,871 posts)or grenades that hit the embassy designed to kill as many people as possible?
1StrongBlackMan
(31,849 posts)but were those mortars and granades a part of the protesting crowd? Or, were they the "hooligan element?"
MNBrewer
(8,462 posts)I don't quite see how you're making a distinction that's useful at all. How does making the distinction provide any benefit?
kentuck
(111,097 posts)I thought they were killed by gunshots or a rocket attack??
treestar
(82,383 posts)would matter some, at least, if there was a claim of no intent to kill. Yet in the US that action would be considered "wilful and wanton" in which case and intent to kill is inferred.
1StrongBlackMan
(31,849 posts)But I am not so much looking at this on a legal basis; but rather, from a media framing perspective and wondering does the (in my view, intentionally) inflamatory language, in light of the known facts, matter?
MNBrewer
(8,462 posts)can you provide some examples?
1StrongBlackMan
(31,849 posts)"killed by the protesting mob."
MNBrewer
(8,462 posts)They were murdered, and by the protesting mob. Not every person in that protesting mob did it, but it was SOMEONE.
treestar
(82,383 posts)There doesn't even seem to be a question of whether the attackers knew the ambassador was in the building, whether they intended to kill anyone - right to the "Muslims are crazy and kill over movies" line.
1StrongBlackMan
(31,849 posts)As one who has participated in protests, sit-ins and civil disobedience, where there was absolutely no thought of acts of violence; but people got hurt none-the-less ... the framing of events is important to public perception/reaction.
L0oniX
(31,493 posts)The "hang em now" crowd is out in force.
Spider Jerusalem
(21,786 posts)if the smoke inhalation was the result of a fire caused by arson, it's legally homicide and probably murder if there was intent to cause harm to persons and not just property.
1StrongBlackMan
(31,849 posts)back to me analogy in post 4.
Spider Jerusalem
(21,786 posts)rushing the field to tear down the goalposts is perhaps an act of vandalism, it's not the deliberate destruction of an occupied building by fire. The degree of difference lies in the expected outcome. If you're part of an exuberant crowd of college football fans whose team has just crushed their opponents and secured a spot in the Rose Bowl? You're not thinking "I'm going to trample a couple of people to death". If you're part of a mob that's storming a building armed with Molotov cocktails? You're thinking "I'm going to burn those motherfuckers out and maybe roast one or two of them". Big difference; the intent is overtly violent in the case of arson and death is a likely outcome.
1StrongBlackMan
(31,849 posts)testifying to facts not in evidence!
There is no evidence that the fires were started by the original protesters ... In fact, reports are indicating that the mortar assault (if that occurred) and RPG attacks happenned late in the day and after the gates had been breached.
If the protesters' intent had been to "burn those MFs" wouldn't they have led with the mortars (if that occurred) and RPGs?
MNBrewer
(8,462 posts)
brooklynite
(94,572 posts)No
MNBrewer
(8,462 posts)than those who burn to death?
1StrongBlackMan
(31,849 posts)with the intent to destory ... One protests with the intent to protest.
Big difference.
MNBrewer
(8,462 posts)If I shoot someone in the head and call it "protest" am I guilty of something other than murder?
1StrongBlackMan
(31,849 posts)suggest that setting the fire was not part of the protest ... until much later in the day, after the gates had been breached.
If that was their intent, wouldn't they have led with the rpgs?
MNBrewer
(8,462 posts)in your view (I guess) weren't protesting, but caused the murders.
Looks like 1 big mob to me.
1StrongBlackMan
(31,849 posts)Just like, the hooligans can't be separated from the soccer fans.
MNBrewer
(8,462 posts)1StrongBlackMan
(31,849 posts)Shouldn't we (the media/commentators) be trying to tamp down the rage; rather than, inflame it?
MNBrewer
(8,462 posts)The murders add to it.
NotThisTime
(3,657 posts)And, as far as what I call it, he was killed.
Joe Shlabotnik
(5,604 posts)was that this was a mishandled policing issue. A protest in a civil war-torn country turned into a riot and somebody died of smoke inhalation. Then it got political, now its about terrorists. I'm suspicious about the media frenzy driving this, it seems disproportionate.
1StrongBlackMan
(31,849 posts)But apparently unquestioning outrage is the flavor of the day. 