It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

Why Are Waffle House Deaths More Important?

page: 3
11
<< 1  2   >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Apr, 24 2018 @ 08:15 AM
link   
a reply to: ABNARTY

No not at all, its not about glamourising the subject at all.

I personally think that it is impossible to glamourise something which has no class at all. You can polish turd all you like, but the sheen will not fool anyone.


As I said, the issue with inner city shootings, is that unless its CLEAR from the report that there has been a tragedy, such as an innocent, non-combatant civilian, being shot during a turf war, the story will not be what a news corporation considers an earner. It will be "Ho hum, how sad, carry on".

Again, the crucial aspect of all this, is how easily a viewer can place themselves in a scenario. Its a damned sight easier to find oneself imagining that one is the victim of a RANDOM act of violence, than it is to imagine that one is being victimised because of a misdeed one has committed previously, as is often the case with gang related killings. For an awful lot of people, even being mixed up as an innocent bystander in a gang shooting, is simply not easy to imagine, because most folks deliberately avoid connecting themselves to the sort of walking dross that attract bullets.

Its very niche. The community in which it happens, having a fuller understanding of the dynamic in the area where a shooting has occurred, might be able to more readily put themselves in the position of an innocent person, gunned down because they were seen with the wrong person, or on the wrong corner, but doing so requires certain special knowledge, location specific knowledge. It cannot sell as well, therefore, as a diner full of people, being shot up by a lunatic for what amounts to no reason at all, other than the fact that he had lost his underwear!




posted on Apr, 24 2018 @ 08:34 AM
link   
a reply to: ABNARTY

Well, let's see:
    - Half-naked shooter

    - Obviously crazy perpetrator

    - Multiple deaths and injuries

    - Shooter was already banned (legally) from possessing firearms

    - Exceptionally random situation (people minding their own business in a restaurant)

    - Shooter escaped the scene

    - But are the two biggest things, IMO:

      - AR-15 was used, so that pushes a current narrative for the anti-"assault-rifle" crowd

      - A non-first-responder was able to disarm the shooter and save who-knows-how-many people, a good talking point for the people advocating for the freedom to individually act instead of cower/run and wait for police

These things make the situation relatively exceptional, and exceptional things, especially when they're coupled with death or destruction, make the news...especially when the incident conforms to multiples sides' talking points.

The reality is that this shooting doesn't make sense in any way, other than just saying, "Well, that naked guy must be crazy to shoot up a place like that for no reason." Others on your list make more sense, as callous as that sounds...there is a murder/suicide on that list, there are multiple single-victim shootings in "iffy" neighborhoods, there was what appears to have been a road-rage incident, etc., etc.

Unfortunately, these things happen on a relatively regular basis--as you've noted with your one-day snapshot, they are a daily occurrence in a nation of more than 320-million people--but the Waffle-House shooting is not one of these that we see on a daily basis, so it makes the news.

I any event, I wonder why this is difficult for you to understand--it's not the deaths that are more important, it's that the incident is more extraordinary. That's how the news works.


edit on 24-4-2018 by SlapMonkey because: (no reason given)

edit on 24-4-2018 by SlapMonkey because: (no reason given)



posted on Apr, 24 2018 @ 09:17 AM
link   
a reply to: ABNARTY

Yes, that's exactly what we need, more laws, LOTS more laws!. In fact...we just need to outlaw and jail gun owners altogether, and outlaw anyone who even "thinks" about one...and every member of their immediate family, their neighbors and even the cat down the street.

Here's an idea; let's just lock everyone in the whole country up, and then let only the psychos, convicted felons and gang bangers out. Seems like the justice system feels they're the only ones okay to roam freely about. The rest of law abiding society should be locked up and have the key thrown away!

/EXTREME SARCASM!!


edit on 4/24/2018 by Flyingclaydisk because: (no reason given)



posted on Apr, 24 2018 @ 09:44 AM
link   

originally posted by: ABNARTY
a reply to: Nyiah

See my response to TrueBrit.

In short, what about innocent folks getting caught in the crossfire?

You've never lived in a s#ty neighborhood, have you? It's a tad obvious.

it's not quite as "what about the innocents" as you seem to be deluding yourself into thinking. Having personally lived just this side of the tracks (the "good" side) from the s#hole end of town before, that's Thug Life collateral, and until the collateral themselves gives enough of a damn to fight back and make things better, there's little in the way of second glances to give from other areas. Until they do, they're the familial deaf ears, the blind eyes to what's killing them & the youngest. It's a culture of violence & silence, and changing one (a culture) quickly is a battle you're vastly underestimating.
edit on 4/24/2018 by Nyiah because: (no reason given)



posted on Apr, 24 2018 @ 10:35 AM
link   

Why Are Waffle House Deaths More Important?


They aren't.


What made these victims different than victims of the other 22 fatal shootings ON THE SAME DAY? I feel those deaths are just as tragic


Because this one was technically a mass shooting. That's why.



posted on Apr, 24 2018 @ 11:53 AM
link   
I think because it fits the narrative perfectly. An AR-15 was used, so we need to use this to victimize the weapon first, then offer thoughts and prayers..........

I had to come here to learn that the shooter was psycho and his weapons were removed, yet his idiot dad gave them back, which resulted in 4 deaths and several injuries. So while we have the ever present "crazy person who likely took SSRIs"
and we have his weapons provided illegally, this will be put in the proper category to use as another senseless death from the "assault weapon that was military grade".

If it wasn't so predictable, it would be scary.



posted on Apr, 24 2018 @ 03:06 PM
link   
a reply to: SlapMonkey

Yes. We've established it is a juicy news story.

We can extrapolate if the news is beating it up, social media will echo that. Yes.

Perhaps a refined clarification: Why does the call for action almost entirely arise from an incident on par with Waffle House, Florida, etc. ?

Does it not sound hypocritical coming from the "somebody needs to do something" crowd? If you don't think there is anything askew with those circumstances, no worries. I am confused by it but respectful.



posted on Apr, 24 2018 @ 03:07 PM
link   
a reply to: Liquesence

Gotcha'. The word "mass" is in there. Must have missed it. Thanks.



posted on Apr, 24 2018 @ 03:16 PM
link   
a reply to: TrueBrit

OK. So for the news consumer, it's easier to relate to a shooting in a restaurant, church, school, etc. It will resonate better and in the end, more eyeballs in front of adds.

Makes sense. I appreciate the feedback.

Add On: A problem arises when add revenue is driving news and subsequently, social media. At least in the states, there are many incapable of thinking their way past that skewed construct. They demand legislation based on a farce. Meanwhile, real problems roll along under the radar. We end up with laws with little connection to the issue from which they arose.



posted on Apr, 24 2018 @ 03:18 PM
link   
a reply to: network dude

Agreed.



posted on Apr, 24 2018 @ 03:33 PM
link   
a reply to: Nyiah

A bit of a deviation from the point but I do agree local problems need the impetus of the local population. Learned that in a number of quaint Iraqi towns. It's like they don't want to save themselves. Rather they hope the odds are in their favor if they play it right, nothing will happen to them. Staying ahead of the bullets.

I'm not sure how a sane person can carry on like that.



posted on Apr, 25 2018 @ 04:03 AM
link   
a reply to: ABNARTY

I completely agree with your statements about the problems arising from connecting the ad revenue from a given hour of news, to what kind of news you are prepared to feature in the future. It damages public awareness of the reality of situations, if editors are influenced more by what they can earn from a topic, than what the people need to know most urgently.

All too often news cycles fail to contain enough data about what is going on in the immediate sense. If you have a gun related death to report, thats a hot topic, lots of viewers will see it, pay attention to it, maybe even take to the internet to state an opinion on it, maybe link people to it, increase the view count and the potential revenue for the story even more. But at the same time, laws are being written and passed that will effect millions, mostly totally under the radar.



posted on Apr, 25 2018 @ 08:09 AM
link   

originally posted by: ABNARTY

Does it not sound hypocritical coming from the "somebody needs to do something" crowd? If you don't think there is anything askew with those circumstances, no worries. I am confused by it but respectful.

Yes, it is hypocritical.

My point was to try and note that there is a numbness to the daily killings that go on, so people tend to ignore them or not give them appropriate thought or consideration.

But when you put "mass" in front of "shooting," suddenly it's a problem.

IMO, all life should be mourned when taken by the hand of another for no just reason.

To your point, though, how many people bat an eye at the deaths accumulated from war?

That just goes to my point that people justify and reason away common deaths by violence, and only take notice at the occasional rare happenings like in Antioch, where naked people shoot random folks for no reason with AR-15s.



posted on Apr, 26 2018 @ 07:15 PM
link   

originally posted by: TrueBrit
a reply to: Flyingclaydisk

Well, assuming that his gun being returned to him was lawful under current regulations, its perfectly possible that whatever law pertains to keeping the mentally defective away from weapons, DOES need an update, or to be scrapped and replaced with something more powerful.

The man should never have been able to get his hands back on his gear, given his history of flipping out, especially if his expression of that was to cause a threat that the secret service had to respond to!


Unfortunately for the Waffle House patrons, he was not supposed to have access to any firearms period. The AR used in this incident was one of the firearms confiscated at the request of the FBI after he was brought in by Secret service for being in an area near the White House that was off limits to the public. The firearms were returned to his father wth the provision that the son was not to have access to them. The father then took it upon himself to say “F&?! It” and face the guns back to his quite clearly mentally ill child. We all know how well that worked out in the end. So the legislation in place should have worked. The father purposely ignored the law and is in his own way, responsible for the deaths and injuries that occurred as a result of his nonchalant attitude. It’s unfortunate that one mans stubborness and refusal to acknowledge his sons mental health issues had to end in a tragedy. In this instance though, the law should have worked and all of the appropriate steps were taken in an attempt to keep firearms out of the hands of the man who needed therapy and medication and not access to firearms.



posted on Apr, 26 2018 @ 07:30 PM
link   

originally posted by: ABNARTY
a reply to: peter vlar

Got it. One vote for a more interesting/compelling death, thus more media coverage is justified.



I don’t agree with the media’s approach in any way at all. I’m just trying to explain why they choose to run with and prioritize a story like this. Unfortunately, the media’s axiom of the last few decades is “if it bleeds, it leads”. Factor that in with a half naked guy with a lengthy history of mental illness that led to the legal system removing his firearms
As well as his right to obtain more firearms in Illinois. I’m curious why the focus of the story isn’t aimed at the shooters father who returned his deranged sons firearms despite agreeing not to do so when the Sherrif’s Dept. agreed to return the weapons to the father.

It’s a pretty clear example of the system actually working as opposed to totally dropping the ball and the family saying screw it and ignoring the courts and Sherrif’s Dept. as well as the safety of the public at large. From everything I’ve read about this case, there shouldn’t have been any question about this guys mental health issues. It’s not every day you get a guy loading an AR-15 into the trunk of his car and driving to a public pool full of children and then jumping into the water wearing nothing but his tighty whities and a pink women’s coat wrapped around his waist. Why it took so long to remove his guns the first time is almost as perplexing to me as why the father would return the guns to a kid who is quite obviously bat sh# crazy.



posted on Apr, 27 2018 @ 06:07 AM
link   
a reply to: peter vlar

If that is the case, then his father should be arrested.

I am all for the right to keep arms and carry them, but in order that the right to do so be protected from those who would assail it, and that life be protected from those who cannot take responsibility for their actions, it is imperative that when the owner of a weapon is rendered incapable of legal responsibility, and has their weapons removed from them as a result, that people around them respect that and understand the reasons well enough to support that situation.

Returning weapons to the hands of someone who has been prohibited from possessing them because they are not mentally fit to hold them... The man should be charged right along with his son.



posted on Apr, 27 2018 @ 07:16 AM
link   
a reply to: TrueBrit

Oh I couldn’t agree more. It reminds me of a recent case where a 15 year old kid was charged with Murder after robbing a house with a few friends, one friend decided to have a shootout with the police and was killed so the surviving participants were charged with murder. 2 took plea deals and the 15 year old was charged as an adult and sentenced to 65 years.

If that kid is guilty of murder then the father of the Waffle House shooter should likewise be charged in similar fashion. At the very least he should be charged as an accessory to murder if their state doesn’t allow for a full murder charge.

It’s above and beyond grossly negligent incompetence to agree with the Sherrif not to give the son access to the firearms and then turn right around and give them back anyway.



new topics

top topics



 
11
<< 1  2   >>

log in

join