Yetp. We aare back on the ruly AWFUL media "coverage" of the killing of those 16 (or however many) civilians in that shooting spree in Afghanistan. "News" coverage simply does not get any worse than this, and I reffuse to let it pass.
The headline above is a direct quote from the presently "featrued" (in the "top stories"--lol--section of Yahoo "News"--Reuters story on Yahoo "News". The minor annoyance is how they keep talking about "shoting supsect", when there is NO DOUBT about the identity of the shooter. This is NOT, for example, the "policy" the media is generally followng with regard to the Trayovon Martin case (where the shooter is also known for certain). The only sense in which this is a SUSPECT is as a MURDER suspect (since "mrucer" is a legal term rather thann a factual term) . The SHOOTER is the SHOOTER, and there is no "suspect" about it. As stated, tis is a relatively minor hypocrisy/annoyance from the mainstream media (wo are perfectly willing to LABEL a epson a murderer when ti fits their agenda, and not just label a person as a "suspect").
Here is the real problem, and the ONLY proper response to this totallyl incompetent headline: SO WHAT. I am serious. It is NOT RELEVANT AT ALL whehter the shooter "failed' to pay a fraud judgment". Nope. "Character" of this kind is NOT ADMISSIBLE as evidence in a court of law on a charge of murder, for the purpose of suggesting that such a "bad" character is more capable of murder than a person of "good" character. And the law is RIGHT. This is a COLLLATERAL ISSUE., and much too irrelevant on the issue of murder (the ONLY "top story" here) to even be brought up. If this were really an "important" thing, it would be necessary to have an entirely OTHER "investigation" of all of the facts behind the "fraud judgment", and any other "theft" that the MURDER accused might be asserted to have done (whehter resulting in a "judgment" or not).
Is there ANY possible headline that might make actual sense here, if you had a COMPETENT "journalist", instead of the totally incompetent and contemptible "journalists" we actually have? Actually, there may be. IF this "faraud judgment" was actually something that weighed on the mind of the accused murderer, it MIGHT (if numerous dots were conneted) shed some light on the kind of PRESSURES that may have caused the man to SNAP. Here is a psossible headline: "Outside pressures on Afghan shooter affected his state of mind.." Notice that I did NOT say "may" have affected his state of mind. If you do not have actual INFORMATIN that there were things that WERE weighing on his state of mind, theis is NOT a "sotry". It is IRRELEVANT. No. It is irrelevant as a "nes" sstory, as well as evidence in a court of law. It is like saying that Bernie Madoff is a more likely murderer because he is a CROOK. The law says this leap of logic cannot be made, and is really an EVIL thing to allow. No. I don't buy the idea that once a person comes to the media's attentino, then ALL of his life is a matter of "pubilc interest" (even if it WRONGLY suggests relevance on the reasona the person is of public interest).
Waht if the shooter killed the person who got a judgment against him? Well, that woululd cerrtainly be evidence of murder, because it is NOT presented as evidence of "general character". Rather, it is direct evidennce of MOTIVE for murder, and would be admissible on that ground. That evidence would make it substantially more likely that the accused had committed murder. "Evidence" of UNRELATED "miscondut" (whether or not it resulted in a judgement) does NOT make it more likely that the person committed murder (except, perhaps, to a totally insignifican degree completeely outweighed by the HARM of delfecting the case down the rabbit trail of a totally irrelevant--but somewhat prejudicial--"isssue".
The way the media reorst on crime IS a crime. These are evil people spreading evil, and not "journalists". See my previous articles on this Afghan killing spree, and the disgraceful media coverage (not that the media coverage of ANY crime is antything but disgraceful).
P.S. No proofreading or spell checking (bad eyesight). By the way, one reason a criminal defendant almsot never atakes the stand is the risk that this kind of "evidence" (of "bad" character) may end up in evidence to IMPEACH the defendant AS a WITNESS. Thus, unrelated FELONY CONVICTIONS are allowed into evidence ONLY if the accused TESTIFIES. That is because a felony conviction is assumed to automatically bear on a person's HONESTY and CREDIBILITY AS A WITNESS. The evidence of an unrelated FELONY is NOT affirmatively adissible to help prove that a person committed murder. It is only admissible as IMPEACHMENT, which means that the only danger of it being admitted is if the accused takes the witness stand. See how useful (lol) this blog is. You even get a lesson in CRIMINAL EVIDENCE. Now if the media would only pay attentin to my LESSONS in JOURNALISM. The world would be a better place.