GUILTY TX - Jazmine Barnes, 7, shot/killed in drive-by shooting, Houston, Dec 2018 *ARREST*

[Cryptic]

My point is that in so many high-profile crimes, especially dreadful mass shootings, there can quickly come a sort of hysteria that takes over as lawyers and people jump into the fray. Victims are extremely vulnerable, the media converges on the town, there is understandable anger, rage even....this has happened so many times before, it is sadly predictable. I'm not pointing fingers. I'm talking about all of us.

Very well said and very eloquently said. And yes, you are talking about all of us. This, "all of us", however, should be balanced with:

For unto whomsoever much is given, of him shall be much required," Luke 12:48

When applied to this situation, I believe that this scripture quote means that professional journalists, have an extra obligation in regards to ethics. I think it is good to contrast between the ethics of CNN with the ethics of the Web Sleuths staff:

CNN ethics "ethics": Broadcast unsupported speculation about a racist motive in a very inflammatory case. Mute information that their original broadcasts were in accurate in regards to the race of the murderer and motives in a follow on story. Imply that the fault of any discrepancy is with the police.

Web Sleuth ethics (Jayme Closs double homicide / kidnapping): No- on this forum, you cannot post un-supported speculation about racist motives. In particular, you cannot speculate that the attack was committed by Islamic fundamentalists targeting whites and/or Christians females. You also can not make un-suppported speculations that the attack was performed hispanics / MS-13.

My guess is that CNN has been given much more than Websleuths staff. But, who displays higher ethics?

 

[miimaa]

Also, there were 4 independent witnesses who ALSO gave the description of the truck. I guess it can be compared to the white van in the D.C. sniper case. It was never the white van but that was the suspect vehicle for a very long time.

I don't understand why people are having such a hard time with this. These people were shot. Other people were fleeing from the shooting. How could they be expected to look around to verify which vehicle the shots came from?

The red truck was likely fleeing as well, which would explain his erratic driving which may have caught their attention. Then from there it was just assumptions made that he was the shooter.

I see no reason why the family would continue their narrative, they will realize they were mistaken. It's completely understandable. I see zero indication they intend to dig in their heels. They just want people to know they didn't imagine the other guy or make him up. They are just happy the killer has been caught.

Jazmine Barnes' mom speaks out about the suspects following arrest

 

[MsFacetious]

Where has it said other people were fleeing from the shooting?

I figured that was common sense. Hear gunshots, flee. The red truck certainly didn't stick around to be shot too. I would consider him to have fled.

I know a couple of vehicles followed the red truck to get a description but none realized he was innocent.

Until the gunshots stopped everyone's priority would have been to not get shot. This would obviously mean they weren't looking at the shooter as he was firing and made an incorrect assumption about who he was.

If people weren't taking cover someone likely would have realized who was actually doing the shooting. They all described the red truck because that's what they saw after the gunfire stopped.

 

[oceanblueeyes]

I dont think the man driving his red pickup will ever come forward and I dont blame him one bit if he never does.

He already knows this is gang related even though the sheriff said it's a case of mistaken identity.

If the gang members on the outside believe he witnessed anything they could then target him and his family.

So to make sure he is protected he never should expose himself and possibly his family publicly.

It's just too dangerous with so many gang members on the streets now infiltrating just about every city and rural communities in our country.

If he came forward I dont think he would ever feel safe again and would constantly be looking over his shoulder.

I am back to believing the mother and sisters didnt purposefully give the wrong description but it is one of the strangest cases I've ever seen.

I can understand why anyone wouldnt be able to even give a description at all in these circumstances but that didnt happen here.

They described the suspect in such great detail from identifying race...age..size..even noting he was so thin he looked sickly and right down to his specific eye color.

I dont remember another case at the moment where the detailed description of the suspect given to LE by the victims was so far off as this one turned out to be.

I guess it's a stark reminder of why direct evidence cases are the most likely to be overturned due to faulty eye witnesses. Yet people have spent decades in prison for being falsely identified before being exonerated. I'm sure some remain in prison today that may be innocent too.

At one time this would have been enough to take someone to trial and be convicted based on eye witness testimony....especially victim eye witness testimony which can carry a lot of weight.

Thank God for the tipster who called in and told LE who the suspects really are. It took a lot of courage to do so knowing there is gang involvement.

Somehow..someway we must get these gangs off the streets. They all do so much harm no matter where they are. Neighborhoods have to feel they are under siege in their own neighborhoods and cant feel safe when they are outside or in their own homes.

Imo

 

[drjones]

Very well said and very eloquently said. And yes, you are talking about all of us. This, "all of us", however, should be balanced with:

For unto whomsoever much is given, of him shall be much required," Luke 12:48

When applied to this situation, I believe that this scripture quote means that professional journalists, have an extra obligation in regards to ethics. I think it is good to contrast between the ethics of CNN with the ethics of the Web Sleuths staff:

CNN ethics "ethics": Broadcast unsupported speculation about a racist motive in a very inflammatory case. Mute information that their original broadcasts were in accurate in regards to the race of the murderer and motives in a follow on story. Imply that the fault of any discrepancy is with the police.

Web Sleuth ethics (Jayme Closs double homicide / kidnapping): No- on this form, you cannot make post un-supported speculation about racist motives. In particular, you cannot speculate that the attack was committed by Islamic fundamentalists targeting whites and/or Christians females. You also can not make un-suppported speculations that the attack was performed hispanics / MS-13.

My guess is that CNN has been given much more than Websleuths staff. But, who displays higher ethics?

"Mute information that their original broadcasts were in accurate in regards to the race of the murderer and motives in a follow on story. "

saying this over and over wont make it true, these details were not included in one version of the article that was up for a short time;

three times now i have pointed out to you that CNN is not hiding this information at all, this is from the current highlighted article on cnn.com right now;

"Before Black's arrest, police released a sketch of the suspect, which included descriptions from Jazmine's mother and three sisters. Authorities said the sketch depicted a white man in his 40s. But Black is a 20-year-old African-American man. Another man who was arrested but has not been publicly identified is also black, Jazmine's mother told CNN affiliate KTRK."

btw you have provided no proof that a CNN anchor suggested that this was a hate crime, do you have any? they may have had a guest on, or an opinion piece, this happens in all journalism - FOX, MSNBC, CBS etc... all of them do this. im not even sure that it is considered poor journalism, it is reporting what is happening in actually happening

 

[bwt42]

All that was needed was a whiff of possible wrongness on the part of the victims via Fox and some were on it.
Unless anyone can give me a motive for lying that would be greater than the need to find the killer of their child.....fear of gangs isn't enough.IMO

Not saying this is the case. But, if this was reported initially as blk on blk crime, do you think the FBI, NASA ,celeb attention & the 100 grand reward would have appeared? I'm not saying this what happened, just replying to your question.

 

[Cryptic]

saying this over and over wont make it true, these details were not included in one version of the article that was up for a short time;

My statement is that CNN did omit details not consistent with their previous article, including the speculation about a racist motive in a follow on story.

Based on your statement above, you also acknowledge that CNN omitted details in a later story. My guess is that differing guidance from CNN editors has led to their quick succession and the variance of stories on the matter.

 

[bwt42]

My guess is if this was gang related, the tipster must have close ties to the perps. He better hope he gets the 100 grand so he can get out of town.

 

[drjones]

My statement is that CNN did omit details not consistent with their previous article, including the speculation about a racist motive in a follow on story.

Based on your statement above, you also acknowledge that CNN omitted details in a later story. My guess is that differing guidance from CNN editors has led to their quick succession of stories on the matter.

stories are edited all the time for various reasons, you never acknowledged that this information was only left out of one version of the story and for a very short time, you never acknowledged that the information you claimed CNN was hiding has been included in their story again since early today and remains there now. so if you are correct in your speculation that "CNN editors" stepped in and fixed the matter (of your hypothetical that CNN was intentionally hiding it) then it would appear maybe just one person messed up and it was quickly fixed... sounds like journalism is doing just fine at CNN eh?

 

[miimaa]

I figured that was common sense. Hear gunshots, flee. The red truck certainly didn't stick around to be shot too. I would consider him to have fled.

I know a couple of vehicles followed the red truck to get a description but none realized he was innocent.

Until the gunshots stopped everyone's priority would have been to not get shot. This would obviously mean they weren't looking at the shooter as he was firing and made an incorrect assumption about who he was.

If people weren't taking cover someone likely would have realized who was actually doing the shooting. They all described the red truck because that's what they saw after the gunfire stopped.

Do you have a link to the source of this information?

This is one of the first stories and the mother says nothing about other cars fleeing the area Texas drive-by shooting: Mother of 7-year-old girl shares her story - CNN


Here is another one -- nothing about other cars https://www.chron.com/news/houston-...after-killing-8-year-old-leaving-13498358.php

Here is a third article from Dec 31st - again nothing about other cars in the vicinity fleeing https://www.theroot.com/7-year-old-killed-in-senseless-shooting-attack-on-black-1831398568

I have yet to read any account that other cars in the area fled the scene. I have been following this story from day one and keeping notes on the changing stories.

 

[bwt42]

stories are edited all the time for various reasons, you never acknowledged that this information was only left out of one version of the story and for a very short time, you never acknowledged that the information you claimed CNN was hiding has been included in their story again since early today and remains there now. so if you are correct in your speculation that "CNN editors" stepped in and fixed the matter (of your hypothetical that CNN was intentionally hiding it) then it would appear maybe just one person messed up and it was quickly fixed... sounds like journalism is doing just fine at CNN eh?

CNN reporting at 6:37 pm ET Second suspect has not been named.

 

[squid]

I believe that this scripture quote means that professional journalists, have an extra obligation in regards to ethics. I think it is good to contrast between the ethics of CNN with the ethics of the Web Sleuths staff.

Thank you for your thoughtful posts regarding the media and ethics. I don't understand if journalistic standards exist and if they are enforceable by any governing body. My guess is no, short of things like libel/slander etc pursued in civil court, and that they operate here in the US much like the social media companies - protected by the 1st amendment. Roughly that they can report what they like including or excluding what they like. And we can choose to get information from them if we like or from elsewhere. I know this is not a discussion for this thread but I wanted to thank you for mentioning it as it is an ongoing struggle for me, as an avid news reader, to find sources I trust.

 

[kimlynn]

Not saying this is the case. But, if this was reported initially as blk on blk crime, do you think the FBI, NASA ,celeb attention & the 100 grand reward would have appeared? I'm not saying this what happened, just replying to your question.

I think that is a cynical view to take when many were upset before celebs were involved that a child was killed in an unprovoked attack.
Grief sells, and media understandably wanted to cover the story.

 

[bwt42]

I consider all opinions as heart felt & legitimate. That being said, I would not give the police a description of someone I didn't see.

 

[bwt42]

I think that is a cynical view to take when many were upset before celebs were involved that a child was killed in an unprovoked attack.
Grief sales, and media understandably wanted to cover the story.

Cynical does not make it wrong.

 

[MsFacetious]

Do you have a link to the source of this information?

I'm sure this will all be in MSM shortly but just so nothing gets twisted, here it is straight from the source. As was said in the presser, the tip went to Shaun who took it to LE.

How the red truck became the suspect vehicle:

Shaun King


How the suspects were identified:

Shaun King

 

[Cryptic]

if you are correct in your speculation that "CNN editors" stepped in and fixed the matter (of your hypothetical that CNN was intentionally hiding it) then it would appear maybe just one person messed up and it was quickly fixed... sounds like journalism is doing just fine at CNN eh?

If there was an error, it was probably more than one person as I think lower ranking journalists (those more likely to make such an error) can not up load stories to the CNN national website with out the material being vetted by somebody more senior.

I also don't think CNN is doing just fine regarding ethics. They also broadcast unsupported speculation (and in the end, very incorrect speculation) that the motive was racial in a very inflammatory crime (another "error" by a lone CNN journalist?).

Contrast CNN "ethics" with the ethics of Web Sleuth staff who repeatedly forbid unsupported speculation about the perpetrators of inflammatory crimes acting on religious or racial motives. Web Sleuth staff repeatedly pulling "jihadis capturing white Christians girls" speculation on the Jayme Closs thread is just one of many examples of their superior ethics.

 

[kimlynn]

Cynical does not make it wrong.

It isn't reasonable to suggest a suspect was fabricated only to draw attention to ones plight.
That is what I'm getting reading between the lines of your original post. IMO

 

[drjones]

CNN reporting at 6:37 pm ET Second suspect has not been named.

the discussion you are replying to is about CNN purposefully hiding information about this case - is it your contention that they are hiding this suspects name purposefully? to what end?

or do you just mean to say that they arent perfect? because i certainly wouldnt argue that point. but it is a fact that they have a good record among major media outlets for issuing corrections when they get things wrong.

 

[Jax49]

I consider all opinions as heart felt & legitimate. That being said, I would not give the police a description of someone I didn't see.

But, they saw him and thought he was the shooter. Of course, we now know he wasn't. moo