G.L.Piggy [at] gmail.com
Error: Twitter did not respond. Please wait a few minutes and refresh this page.
1. In order to marginalize the skewed incidents of quasi-random black-on-white violence, journos are instead having a shadow discussion over whether or not ‘Knockout Game’ is a trend, an epidemic, or even a game. This misses the point which is, as Colin Flaherty says in this interview, part of a larger pattern of quasi-random crimes perpetrated by black youth which also takes place in the form of ‘flash robs’ and pure old fashioned street-level group attacks. The real story is not that this has risen to trend or epidemic level – what is a trend? what constitutes an epidemic? – it’s that the crimes have occurred and it is beyond random chance that it is almost unanimously black youth who are carrying out the crimes. What is a trend is that the news media is now covering these crimes. And, oh, forgive us who’ve been writing on these crimes and patterns for a while now for spending a little bit of time discussing their social significance. The stories have been hidden for so long that there’s a lot of catching up to do.
a. Matt Yglesias talks more about the time he was the victim of a quasi-random street attack.
b. Emma Roller seems to want more hard proof. As far as street-level crime goes all of the Youtube videos documenting these crimes is as good of evidence as you’re going to get. And it’s completely damning. Besides that, cities don’t go all that granular on street crime. And victims are often hesitant to come forward to either talk about their attacks or call it what it is.
c. Jamelle Bouie thinks that this is all white hysteria. But this is the same guy who wrote a piece denying black-on-black crime exists. Bouie missed the point on that topic as well. Perhaps conservatives are framing the issue of black-on-black crime poorly – but what is really driving the concern about black-on-black crime is that the *levels* of the crime are extremely high relative to other racial groups. Bouie got mired down in making the point that most crime is intraracial. Yes, of course it is. But, again, that misses the point. Seems that Bouie thought he had a real winner of an argument there given his propensity for re-tweeting that article.
2. Just ruminating here on why the mainstream media so inconsistently labels things a trend. A series of individual events of a similar character and nature are more likely to be labeled a trend by the mainstream media in this order:
a. If the gatekeeper-reporter likes the pattern and likes the people engaging in it. Ex: Flash mobs, quinoa.
b. If the gatekeeper-reporter does not like the pattern and does not like the people engaging in it. Ex: Cyberbullying.
c. If the gatekeeper-reporter likes the pattern but does not like the people engaging in it. Ex: Joan Walsh’s response to libertarians rallying against the NSA.
d. If the gatekeeper-reporter does not like the pattern but does like (or sympathize with, feel guilt for, or seek to excuse) the people or group engaging in it. Ex: Knockout, flash robs.
3. A crowd-sourced escape from poverty? Linda Tirado has made a series of bad choices in her life. She’s poor but writes well enough to be published by Gawker (which isn’t saying much) such that people felt the need to give her something like $50,000. Her story sounds like it’s embellished for effect. Not that I’m against duping idiotic liberals out of their money.
4. Women regret past sexual escapades while men wish they’d had more. The author of the article detailing some research on the topic doesn’t want to chalk any of this up to evolution.
For one, I always find it hard to believe that modern young men’s sexual decisions are guided by an evolutionary desire to reproduce with as many women as possible, when most are terrified by the thought of accidentally getting someone pregnant.
5. Rod Dreher was almost fooled by the story of waitress-hoaxtress Dayna Morales. He thought that the bigoted receipt message she received was “awful”, but he’s glad he waited to report on the story.
Tim Cavanaugh has a good piece at The Daily Caller pointing out that the New York Times finally met a series of similar events it didn’t think qualified as a trend. Cavanaugh writes:
America’s newspaper of record, which eagerly reported on bogus trends in church burnings, the looming bee extinction and other subjects, doubts the “knockout game” is a thing.
The New York Times has discovered that the media panic over the “knockout game” — in which primarily black youths engage in random, violent, racist attacks against mostly white victims — is just a product of “fear sown by reports” that “may have racial roots.”
Really, the point of all of this argument about the nature of “Knockout Game” – whether or not it’s a trend or a game – is that it would be considered a trend if whites were targeting blacks. Contrary to what a lot of prestige pressers are saying, the interest in the trend of the media choosing to never address the racial component of the crimes, however many there are. The news value is not that these crimes are occurring with enough frequency such that it would be wise for all of us to stay inside. Instead, the value of the entire collection of these quasi-random attacks on strangers without monetary motive is that they are almost unanimously carried out by black youth. But by focusing on whether or not this rises to the level of an actual trend or whether it is an actual game is really missing the point.
But as for Cavanaugh’s point about the Times, a couple years ago, Slate’s Jack Shafer called out a New York Times piece which reported on a supposed trend of criminals wearing New York Yankees ballcaps during the commission of their crimes. Shafer wrote:
Despite un-announcing the trend, the Times persists, offering this evidence: “Since 2000, more than 100 people who have been suspects or persons of interest in connection with serious crimes in New York City wore Yankees apparel at the time of the crimes or at the time of their arrest or arraignment.” It also musters anecdotes about several crimes committed by people wearing Yankees garb.
Imagine if the Times devoted a piece to the trend of hoodies being worn during the commission of crimes.
It is no surprise that Dayna Morales, a gay waitress from New Jersey and a former Marine, most likely lied when she told the world that a family of 4 stiffed her and left her an anti-gay message on their dinner receipt.
Morales, whose story went viral after she emailed it to a gay-friendly website, produced the receipt on which was written “I’m sorry but I cannot tip because I do not agree with your lifestyle.” Morales sent a picture of the receipt which showed that she was left no tip on a $93.55 tab.
The family, whose name was not published unlike with the Red Lobster waitress hoax story, said that they finally came forward after the story would not die and after Morales was given $3,000 in an outpouring of support.
They provided a copy of the restaurant receipt and a copy of their Visa bill to NBC 4 New York which showed that they spent $111.55 at the restaurant. Morales and the restaurant had no good explanation for the discrepancy.
The accused wife in this story told NBC 4 that she thinks that there was a bit of confusion when the family were first seated at their table. She said that when they were being seated the hostess told them that “Dan” would be right with them. When Morales, who has short, spiked hair, showed up to the table the wife said something like “whoa, you’re not Dan.” When Morales first told the story, she said that the wife said “Oh, I thought you were going to say you’re name is Dan. You sure surprised us!”
It’s pretty easy to see what’s going on here, assuming that the documents that the family provided to NBC 4 are legitimate. Morales was pissed at what she thought was a slight from the wife of the family. Carrying that chip on her shoulder – and even though the family tipped her generously – Morales thought that the message that she wrote on the receipt herself was a good enough representation of what that family *really* thought about her.
A similar communication gap probably led to the Red Lobster receipt fabrication from Toni Jenkins. What likely happened in that case was that the young couple at the center of that story had to leave the restaurant to take care of an emergency. They took their food to-go shortly after ordering at their table. Jenkins likely interpreted this as the couple not liking her for some reason. In Jenkins mind it seems it was only a small leap from there to assume that they didn’t like her because she is black. In fact, our society now trains people of minority status to think that every rejection of any kind is due to the minority’s minority-ness. Once that assumption is locked and loaded, it’s only a very small white lie to attach a fake bigoted message to the receipt.
When I was reporting on the Red Lobster receipt story the handwriting expert that conducted the analysis of Jenkins’s handwriting made a curious and unprovoked comment to me. He said that nearly all of the anonymous handwritten fabrications that he’s seen have come from women. I perked up at that because I’ve noted the same thing before.
The tendency here is to focus on the minority group members who perpetuate these hoaxes. But, instead, I look at sex. Under the auspices of hate acts, women are more likely to use these accusations to garner sympathy. Susan Smith and Bethany Storro claimed that blacks attacked them – the former claiming that a black man abducted and murdered her children while the latter claimed that a black women threw acid in her face out of jealousy. Back during the 2008 election a young woman falsely claimed that a man carved the letter ‘B’, signifying ‘Barack Obama’, on her face during a robbery attempt. Recently, two lesbians were found to be lying about a reported hate crime.
To me, this is an interesting sociological question that no serious academic will ever be allowed to actually study. If they did, the question would be framed as “why do women feel the need to perpetuate hate crime hoaxes more than men?” as if it is society’s fault.
Since that posting one of the more infamous hate crime hoax stories came from a lesbian named Charlie Rogers in Lincoln, Nebraska who said that she was raped and mutilated by some rednecks because she was gay. As with these other two cases Rogers was given money by a bunch of gullible morons.
Another twist on the Morales story is that the former Marine said she was going to donate the $3k she received in donations to the Wounded Warrior Project. That donation has not been confirmed.
White rapper Macklemore won Best Album at the American Music Awards last night. The win was a travesty, as Macklemore beat out a superior rapper and album in Kendrick Lamar’s Good Kid M.A.A.D. City, but his victory speech was even worse.
Sitting alongside his production partner Ryan Jones, Macklemore spoke about Trayvon Martin. He quoted Martin Luther King before making a political statement about Trayvon Martin’s death and “the hundreds and hundreds of kids each year that are dying through racial profiling and the violence that follows it.”
Macklemore is half right. Hundreds and hundreds of black kids do die each year because of racial profiling. But what Macklemore willfully ignores is that it is black kids profiling other black kids that is the cause of so many of these deaths. And then there is “victim profiling” which is when a criminal targets a person perceived to be weaker or not street savvy. This tends to befall whites and other non-black minorities. Victim profiling is something Kendrick Lamar touched on in his superior album on the track “Money Trees”:
You looking like an easy come up, ya bish
A silver spoon I know you come from, ya bish
And that’s a lifestyle that we never knew
Go at a reverend for the revenue
The ironic thing is that even though Macklemore won the award and used it as a platform to talk about Trayvon Martin, Kendrick Lamar essentially rapped about someone like Martin. Lamar’s album was all about his own struggles growing up in Compton. It details the life prescribed to most black people who live in Compton and Miami Gardens and other similar cities. Lamar’s album could have been the soundtrack to Martin’s life. I still maintain that Martin was not a “bad kid” but instead one that wanted to act hard, both at school and in his neighborhood and also that night when he crossed paths with George Zimmerman.
The New York Times tackles “Knockout Game” and pretty much writes the article you’d expect. But, as always, it’s fun and important to pay close attention to the tactics used to downplay the existence of obvious patterns.
Here’s one sample among many in the article:
And in New York City, police officials are struggling to determine whether they should advise the public to take precautions against the Knockout Game — or whether in fact it existed.
But police officials cautioned that they had yet to see evidence of an organized Knockout Game spreading among teenagers online, though they have been reluctant to rule out the possibility.
There is particular concern within the department that widespread coverage could create the atmosphere where such a “game” could take hold in New York.
The bait-and-switch here is that instead of asking whether or not there are lots of incidents of these “random” attacks – and ones with racial disparities between the perps and victims – they ask if it is all part of a game. It doesn’t actually really matter to the victims and to the worried public whether or not this is all a game with a set of rules that is discussed and hashed out by its players. What truly matters is whether people are getting beaten up for no reason other than the passing amusement of the perpetrators. But by questioning whether there is some sort of organization to it all, the New York Times gets to avoid discussing the issue directly. “Is this happening?” versus “Is this happening in game form?” are two different questions, and it’s much harder to prove that this is all a sick game than it is to just acknowledge that for whatever reason and by whatever rules, black teenagers are targeting non-black people for no reason other than to try to knock them out cold.
It’s been both amusing and frustrating seeing people take up this topic. I’ve had two co-workers start talking about “Knockout Game”, probably after they saw an article on Facebook. I felt torture inside. I felt like a hipster who’d noticed a band waaaay before everyone else noticed them once they’d gone mainstream. One of the co-workers who asked me if I’d heard about the “game” (and I did an internal eye-roll, fuck you, and somersault all at once – it was a mixed bag of emotions) started rambling on about it. I let him ramble because I wanted to see how your regular apolitical person thinks about these stories when they see them in the news. He finally keyed in on the racial element without my coaxing. Then he said “but there are probably groups of white kids doing this too.” So I had to jump in and tell him that of the dozens if not hundreds of reports of “random” attacks by groups of teenagers that I’ve seen, absolutely zero have been white kids. He said “yeah, you’re right, but I just had to say that so I didn’t feel racist or anything.” This is pretty much the wavelength which the New York Times is working on, but more sophisticated.
1. Charles Murray points to a write-up at Brookings from Russ Whitehurst about a recent, robust, randomized study on the effects of pre-K on outcomes for kindergartners and first-graders.
Based on what we have learned from these studies, the most defensible conclusion is that these statewide programs are not working to meaningfully increase the academic achievement or social/emotional skills and dispositions of children from low-income families. I wish this weren’t so, but facts are stubborn things.
2. Peter Hitchens on the manipulation of crime statistics in England (h/t Heartiste).
3. Though the data wasn’t provided, a researcher from Australia found that it takes kids today about 90 seconds longer to run a mile compared to kids 30 years ago. Cardiovascular health fell an average of 6% per decade between 1970 and 2000. Endurance has decreased about 5% per decade across all nations.
4. Interesting but completely unsurprising results from an analysis of racial preferences of users of an online dating app. I say unsurprising because anyone who pays attention to the world will not be surprised by any of the vectors. The limitation on the analysis is that it measure response rates to “yes’s”. But if there are general racial differences in how many “yes’s” then the response rate might be skewed. (h/t Robert VerBruggen)
5. Peter Turchin: the overproduction of elites has fucked everything up: “A large class of disgruntled elite-wannabes, often well-educated and highly capable, has been denied access to elite positions.”
6. Why men have larger noses than women. (h/t Razib Khan)
7. This article has been everywhere, but it is familiar to many here. Other women, and not the patriarchy, are the source of slut-shaming and other such mean girl behaviors.
8. WSJ had an article about the obsession over running marathons and also the appearance of marathon stickers. I wrote about this a year ago and made some similar observations, mostly about the stickers that people place on their cars to show everyone in the world that they ran a marathon (or at least half of one).
9. A large company that gets government grants usually given to small businesses. Many of the grants are given to the company, MicroTech, because it has a Hispanic CEO. The company hooked up with another one called MicroLink in order to game the system. I’m sure this happens all the time, but we never hear about it:
Rabiah Y. Sutton, a former contract specialist at MicroLink, recalled Truitt and Wharton telling her that they were starting a new company with a retired Army officer who is Hispanic “to get access to some socioeconomic designations that they couldn’t participate in because MicroLink was owned by two white males.”
This reminds me of the arrangement of TELACU — a Los Angeles-based “community development corporation” that largely subsists on government grants. TELACU was started by Latinos with civil rights grievances and has outgrown itself.
1. James McAuley, Harvard ’12, is from Dallas so he was given the conch in order to write this on Dallas’ role in the JFK assassination:
That’s because, for the self-styled “Big D,” grappling with the assassination means reckoning with its own legacy as the “city of hate,” the city that willed the death of the president.
In 2005, Weekly Standard’s Philip Chalk noted Dan Rather’s role in fomenting this “City of Hate” trope:
It was a different lie–one delivered on national news, and at the expense of children–that caused Rather trouble at the time. As reporters from around the world descended on the Texas city, Rather went on the air with a local Methodist minister who made a stunning claim: Children at Dallas’s University Park Elementary School had cheered when told of the president’s death.
The tale was perfect for the moment, reinforcing the notion among distant media elites that Dallas was a reactionary “City of Hate.” It slyly played to a local audience, too: The school named was in upper-income University Park, one of two adjacent municipal enclaves that shared a school district and a reputation for fiercely protected, lily-white privilege. Finally, for the ambitious Rather–a native Texan and then a Dallas resident–the account represented the very sort of revealing, local dirt that the throngs of out-of-town competitors would have to work far harder to get.
Except that it wasn’t true, and Rather knew it….
Steve Sailer looks at this as well. As Sailer points out, and as CNN’s new JFK assassination documentary does a convincing job of, Lee Harvey Oswald was a Marxist and not a right-winger. Something I did not know until I watched the documentary is that Oswald had tried to assassinate right-wing general Edwin Walker.
2. After-school activities make educational inequality worse. The subhead: “How middle-class parents use soccer, ballet, and chess to solidify their children’s advantage over others.” Evil bastards.
3. Philip Chism, the 14 year-old who attacked and killed his teacher Colleeen Ritzer in Salem, Mass., has the same racial admixture as President Obama but is listed as white in the police report documenting the murder. (h/t Conservative Treehouse)
4. Some numbers put on the relatively lack of motivation for younger, healthier people to sign up for health insurance:
In California, the state with the largest uninsured population, most of those who applied were older people with health problems. In Kentucky, nearly 3 of 4 enrollees were over 35. In Washington state, about 23 percent of enrollees were between 18 and 34. And in Ohio, groups helping with enrollment described many of those coming to them as older residents who lost their jobs and health coverage during the recession.
5. At The American Conservative, Daniel McCarthy takes The Empathy Test, the one made popular by Simon Baron-Cohen which gauges empathy on the ability to figure out emotions by looking at people’s eyes. McCarthy found it easier to gauge women’s emotions while when I took the test I had a harder figuring women out.
As you might have read, the homeowner who shot and killed Renisha McBride is a guy named Ted Wafer. He’s been charged with 2nd degree murder, manslaughter, and unlawful use of a weapon. The 2nd degree murder charge in Michigan is not as stringent as the one in Florida. The murder charge against George Zimmerman required proof that he shot Trayvon Martin with ill will, spite, and hatred.
The most damning evidence presented thus far is that Wafer fired the gun while his screen door was closed and perhaps locked, according to Wayne County prosecutor Kym Worthy. It is my *opinion* that Wafer was being truthful when (if) he told police that he accidently shot McBride. It seems like he has downplayed that statement since he obtained legal counsel. I believe that he was frightened or scared that someone was banging on his door at 4 a.m. which is why he took a shotgun with him. Taking the shotgun from his bedroom to the front door is a good objective clue that he was frightened to some degree. I do not think that McBride herself scared Wafer. But he was in an uncertain situation, took a gun with him to the door, and it fired without direct intent or malice.
1.) The screen door is damning evidence that Wafer committed manslaughter, but it also points away from a second-degree murder charge. The Michigan manslaughter statute reads:
A person who wounds, maims, or injures another person by discharging a firearm that is pointed or aimed intentionally but without malice at another person is guilty of manslaughter if the wounds, maiming, or injuries result in death.
Just putting on an investigator’s cap here, if Wafer wanted to commit murder and ensure that he killed McBride, he likely would not have fired through a screen door.
2.) This made me think of something that happened to a kid who I grew up with. Right after high school the kid was living with his girlfriend in an apartment. He also happened to sell weed which made him a target. One night, a girl knocked on the apartment door. The guy’s girlfriend answered and two other guys rushed into the apartment, put a gun to the girlfriend’s head, and started asking for the weed and the money. This happens a lot, I’m sure. The guy I know ran back to his bedroom and grabbed his shotgun. One of the intruders followed, and the guy turned around and blasted the guy in the chest, killing him. Point being, it is not unreasonable to think that a young woman is being used as a ploy to gain entry into a house. Though perhaps the media has helped blow up these stories to make them seem much more common than they actually are, there too are stories of people claiming distress in order to get people to open up their doors and to rob them or do them harm. In the case of Wafer and McBride, a 4 a.m. knock only increases the confusion and the skepticism from the homeowner. I don’t think it is unreasonable to be very skeptical at that point, risk factors for a bad outcome are increased across the board.
3.) I mixed it up a little bit on Facebook with Jamelle Bouie, a writer at, I think, The Daily Beast or The American Prospect, Jamil Smith, a producer for Melissa Harris-Perry’s show, and the inimitable Toure. I had documented how Toure responded to me asking if alcohol in McBride’s system justified her killing. The next day, as I was following comments on the McBride case on Twitter, both Smith and Bouie tweeted almost identical forms of the same question: “does McBride being drunk mean that she deserved to die?”
I commented how it was almost like the three of them were the same person. I got flak for that for saying that “all black people are alike”. But whatever.
McBride’s blood-alcohol level was 0.218 which is insanely high. As Grerp pointed out on Twitter (Grerp lives in Michigan), the state of Michigan has enacted laws that add extra punishment on those who have extremely high BAL in the event of a traffic accident, which is what McBride was in.
Now, does a high BAL mean that McBride deserved to die? No – as they say, deserving has nothing to do with it. Did McBride deserve to hit a parked car just because she was drunk? No, but she did. And she did hit a parked car because being that drunk increases the odds of all sorts of bad things coming your way. It increases your odds of getting in a wreck. It increases your odds, especially if you’re a woman, of being raped. It increases your odds of getting into an argument. It increases your odds of mistaking someone else’s house for your own. It increases your odds of getting into a bad situation where the other party involved in the situation is not privy to the same information you are, but the high BAL makes it such that you can’t really explain yourself all that well. A high BAL increases risk all across the board in numerous ways. So does McBride’s high BAL mean she deserved to die? What, are there no other options for how alcohol could have factored into her death?
4.) In a McBride family press conference yesterday the family attorney Gerald Thurswell said that someone in McBride’s family had said that maybe McBride thought that Wafer’s house was her own house. I had mentioned the other day that some web sleuths found both houses which both sit on their respective corners and which are both light brown in color and very similar looking. This seems, in all likelihood, to be the reason that McBride showed up on Wafer’s doorstep. That crushes the narrative thus far that McBride was looking for help. Thurswell said that McBride had gone up to one other house to look for help, but that resident had said that at a vigil for McBride. The report has not been corroborated. Regardless, it was a 0.8 mile walk from the wreck to Wafer’s house, and there are a bunch of other houses in between.
McBride’s reasons for going to Wafer’s house are important both factually and also symbolically. Symbolically, “she was just looking for help” has the power of “he was carrying only Skittles and iced tea”. That is the hook; it’s what has helped to make sure that Ted Wafer is now royally fucked even if he either was defending his home or he accidentally shot someone. If the latter, he still deserves to go to jail since wielding a firearm irresponsibly. But, the “she was just looking for help” piece helps activists turn this into some sort of race case. “He didn’t want to help her,” they say, because she was black or whatever. And then they refer back to two other recent cases of black people seeking help – Glenda Moore and Jonathan Farrel. Those cases, just like Trayvon Martin and Emmett Till, help prime people to think that Wafer was racist.
5.) An ex-girlfriend of Wafer’s said that Wafer was not racist but that he had a temper and liked to drink. But their relationship ended in 1995 and Souriall indicated that she had not seen Wafer since that time. It seems that Wafer had filed a restraining order against Souriall on 1/26/95. Souriall responded by filing a restraining order on Wafer 5 days later. You can go look those documents up through this portal.
This exposes another dark side of journalism. This ex-girlfriend was reached because her name is the only one out there in the ether that is associated with Wafer. She should not be the first person out there giving her opinion on the guy. But the way that journalism works – the tools which people have available to them – makes it such that people who’ve had bad dealings with certain individuals are the ones who are most likely to give their viewpoint on the person and also the ones who are easiest to contact. I say that even though I tried to contact this woman as well. I’m part of the problem.
6.) I spoke to Rick Jones, the Michigan senator who wrote all of the state’s self-defense laws in 2005. Jones says that based upon the evidence presented so far in the case, he does not believe that those self-defense laws protect Wafer. Jones reiterated that someone had to be “breaking your door down” in order for those laws to apply.
This is an especially notable hatchet-job from The New York Times. The headline reads “Health Law Rollout’s Stumbles Draw Parallels to Bush’s Hurricane Response” because that way instead of thinking of the mess that Obamacare has made, we’ll divert our attention to how bad of a president Bush was. And the reason we know it’s just a diversionary tactic is because the Times doesn’t establish that anyone actually compared Obamacare to Katrina until halfway through the piece. The reporter, Michael Shear, mentions the link in the second graf and then spoke to a top national security official in Bush’s White House. I wonder if the guy had even thought about the link until it was mentioned to him by the reporter:
Republicans readily made the Hurricane Katrina comparison. “The echoes to the fall of 2005 are really eerie,” said Peter D. Feaver, a top national security official in Mr. Bush’s second term. “Katrina, which is shorthand for bungled administration policy, matches to the rollout of the website.” Looking back, he said, “we can see that some of the things that we hoped were temporary or just blips turned out to be more systemic from a political sense. It’s a fair question of whether that’s happening to President Obama.”
The president’s top aides vehemently reject the comparison of Mr. Obama’s fifth year in office to the latter half of Mr. Bush’s second term. They say Americans lost confidence in Mr. Bush because of his administration’s ineptitude on Hurricane Katrina and its execution of the war in Iraq, while Mr. Obama is struggling to extend health care to millions of people who do not have it. Those are very different issues, they said.
Besides all of that, there is one big difference between Bush’s failure during Katrina and Obama’s failure in Obamacare. Bush was forced to confront a natural disaster with maybe a week’s worth of warning. How long has Obama had to rollout Obamacare and the website? Barack Obama Hates Americans.
Here I am calling out the liberal media for missing the mark when Rod Dreher at American Conservative seems not to have learned any lessons from Trayvon Martin. Jumping the gun on Nov. 7, Dreher wrote:
Good Lord: a 19 year old black woman in a (mostly white) Detroit suburb got into a car accident at 2:30 in the morning, went onto the porch of a nearby house to ask for help, and was shot and killed, allegedly by the homeowner, who thought he was being attacked. The victim’s family says she was shot in the back of the head, apparently as she was leaving. Rania Khalek comments:
Dearborn Heights police initially told McBride’s family that her body was found dumped near Warren Avenue and Outer Drive, but that story quickly changed. Not only are police refusing to release the identity of the man who shot McBride, they’re now saying she was mistaken for an intruder and shot in self-defense on the homeowner’s front porch. Even if that’s the case, and there’s reason to believe it’s not, the shooter still failed to call 911 after shooting an unarmed woman in the head, instead leaving her there to die. Does that sound like the behavior of a law-abiding gunowner who made a tragic mistake?
No, it does not. I believe in Stand Your Ground laws, but based on what we know now, I fail to see how this could remotely be justified. This story bears watching, vigilantly. My thanks to the reader who sent it to me.
Here is Dreher parroting along inaccurate pieces of the Zimmerman case story at a time when a lot of other people were too, and here he is expressing viewpoints indicating that he had changed his mind on the case.
To push the point here a little further, Dreher, a former newspaper man, bought several untruths hook, line, and sinker. Why does this continue to happen? Are everyone’s B.S. meters broken or what?
We don’t know that McBride “went onto the porch of a nearby house to ask for help”. People who came to McBride’s rescue after her car wreck said that she fled the scene. She may not have been going to “look for help”. She might have been running from the cops who can either be seen as help or hindrance, depending on your level of intoxication (even the McBride family attorney has acknowledged that McBride was likely over the legal intoxication limit). The people who came to help McBride also said that McBride said she wanted to go home. One internet sleuth found pictures of McBride’s home and also the house where she was shot. Both sit on their respective corners of the street, and both are light brown in color. The houses look very similar*. It is not unreasonable to assume that McBride thought she was entering her own home rather than merely waiting on the porch and quietly explaining that she needed help from a car wreck that occurred over a mile away. So imagine the thinking of both McBride and the homeowner. Did she think that a stranger was in her own house? How did she respond to that?
And the Dreher takes for granted the family’s narrative. We should have learned by now that victim’s families are not reliable narrators. Maybe we can trust their motives, but we can’t trust their statements.
Kym Worthy, the Wayne County prosecutor, will hold a press conference tomorrow to update the state of the investigation.
*I’ll wait until after Worthy’s announcement to publish that on the blog.