Oh hell, Laurin, don't take it all back; doing so casts the impression that you are siding with Mr. Sam's hysterical, half-rational and race-obsessed assessment, an assessment which is nearly incoherent and scatter-shot in its presentation.
The "smart money" says that Mr. Sam sees everything through the lens with which he produced the crackpot perception he shared with-- or, more to the point, excreted upon-- us.
Also, this would be a good time to take a minute and remind ourselves that the incident just happened and the "story" just broke.
One of the issues in play, here, is that the media-- not just our local posse of camera-wielding voyeurs-- jumps all over an incident as soon as they learn of it, and in the rush to be the first ones on the air with it, they paste together whatever they think they have, and blurt it out in another one of their juicy "Breaking News Alerts." That's how their business is run, and if people didn't eat it up like a goddam ice cream cone, they would've stopped doing it a long time ago.
So let's not become part of the same cycle of rushing to judgment ahead of having the facts, eh?
Oh, never mind. What was I thinking? This is DetroitYes.
In any case, they ran with what they thought they had, and part of that was the "shooter was philandering" angle.
Since that particular angle doesn't seem to be all that germane to the meat of the story, I think it is unfortunate [[maybe even downright tacky & insensitive) that they chose to include it in their coverage of the incident, but I don't see anything racist going on, here.
Bookmarks