Well, is he a child or does he deserve the respect implicit with the honorific “Mr.” suggesting a proper adult gentleman.
Either way, the media I follow is showing way to much respect for this street thug.
Any young black man can only draw the conclusion that overt stealing and bullying nevermind shoplifting is no big deal for society and the only people that stand in your way are the cops who you do not need to respect because they are “racists”.
Yes he did not deserve to die. But if he had any proper upbringing he would have shown the cops obedience and respect the way I and my peers were taught and would be alive today.
Sadly, I’m not hearing this message, and I’m afraid that the Trayvon Martin case, very similar in the glorification of a young thug has spawned this tragedy as well as many more to come. Its amazing what a young fellow can justify for bad behavior if he feels that he is victimized. Thanks to the media and the public reaction that I see that is the only message getting through to young black men.
He was over 18 IIRC, so he was legally an adult. But I think the “Mr. Brown” thing is of a piece with something else that is sometimes charming and sometimes jarring in police statements. It is the habit of referring to adult males polite terms that sometimes seem badly out of context. As in “at that point, the gentleman opened fire on his wife, hitting her twice in the face”.
Or in this case, “Mr. Brown was recorded robbing a store and assaulting the clerk.”
I’ve been accuses of being excessively formal, but not at gunpoint. Of course, I am also the person of whom it was once said, “Arguing with Shodan is like getting beaten up by a man in a bow tie”, so FWIW.
The “Mr.” thing is a convention that varies by media outlet, isn’t it? Some use it (e.g. the NYT), and some don’t? You didn’t cite any source in your rant, so it’s hard to know exactly who you’re outraged about.
I agree that it’s a convention used by some news sources. And if the news source regularly uses mister in referring to adult males in news articles, it would be weird not to use it when and if one believes the person is not worthy of respect.
Male children are generally, formally referred to as “Master” so, yeah…
And I agree with the others who say cite the fucking sources you object to, if you find this so galling, you twat.
Meanwhile, if the Ferguson police considered him a human being, perhaps they’d have done him the courtesy of writing up an incident report at the time (or at least not leaving his body lying unattended in the street for four or so hours) documenting that they’d killed someone - so at least someone considers him worthy of the least amount of consideration.
BrainGlutton - The author of the article you linked to refers to Brown as “the teenager who was gunned down…”. You don’t think she has a bias here, do you?
That is a long-standing convention of the New York Times. You may find slight unction for your wounds in the fact that they applied the same honorific to Saddam Hussein, and (up until his death) Osama bin Laden.
And it’s Mrs. Turnip, if you don’t mind. I’m a married man.
First, Brown is never referred to as a child in that article. He is, in one section, referred to as a teenager which is, for someone aged 18, factually correct.
And, as others have already pointed out, and as anyone who has read more than about three New York Times articles knows, the Times basically always uses “Mr.” when talking about men. They use it for politicians, for sports figures, for actors, and even for terrorists and criminals. It’s their “house” style.
In the article (might require subscription) on the killing of Osama bin Laden, they referred to him as Mr. Bin Laden.
Hell, if one of your frequent exercises in stupidity, as demonstrated by your performance on these boards, ever happens to make the news, they’ll probably even refer to you as Mr. Dutchman.
Not going to line up with the “Show Police respect and obedience and you won’t be killed” crowd.
It’s well past time we put an end to that sort of totalitarian bullshit. “To Protect and Serve”, not “To Bully and Kill”. We have people as Police so that they can maintain order and reduce crime. Not so they can rule us with an iron fist, killing people and pets every time they get their dander up.
And the day they decide such things are their Right is the day we decide maybe we don’t want people who think that way policing us.