If they Gun me down... which picture will they use????

EVER wondered what photo of you would be used if you were killed? African Americans say they do and have started a campaign to stop being misrepresented by the media.

The #IfTheyGunnedMeDown campaign has gone viral on Twitter following the shooting death of 18-year-old unarmed teenager Michael Brown in St Louis.

While the media initially opted for a graduation picture of Brown, a second image of him in a sports singlet and making a hand gesture that could have been interpreted by some as a gang-sign then became a more popular image.

Brown’s death has sparked looting and riots in the city.
Eyewitness to Brown’s death, Phillip Walker, said he was on his apartment balcony when he heard a shot and saw a white officer with Brown on the street.
Brown “was giving up in the sense of raising his arms and being subdued,” Mr Walker said. The officer “had his gun raised and started shooting the individual in the chest multiple times.” The officer then “stood over him and shot him” after the victim fell to the ground.

a white officer with Brown on the street.
Brown “was giving up in the sense of raising his arms and being subdued,” Mr Walker said. The officer “had his gun raised and started shooting the individual in the chest multiple times.” The officer then “stood over him and shot him” after the victim fell to the ground.

Rome charges contemporary mass media with such "conceptual entrapment by imagery" in his new book, Black Demons: Mass Media's Depiction of the African American Male Criminal Stereotype, published this month by Praeger Publishers. While the book is geared to the college classroom, Rome wrote it to appeal to the general public as well, which he would like to see take a more critical view of media that he says foster a negative stereotype of African Americans.

Contemporary media, he says, particularly through extreme gangster rap music, reality crime shows and newscasts, have essentially defined crime and given it a black face, despite statistics that paint a different picture. For example, he cites statistics that point to higher cocaine use among whites than blacks, an impression one does not get while watching the evening news or the reality show COPS, he says.

Rome has been researching issues related to crime, media, race and ethnic relations for 15 years. What has evolved from his work is a schema, central to his book, that involves several steps:

The media report on crimes, showing images that viewers then associate with crime.

The media report on crimes without showing images. Viewers have in mind the images shown previously.
When viewers later think about crimes, they look for indications that support their conception of crime, which was formed by what they saw in the media reports.

"I want people to understand the conceptualization, the entrapment by the media, and not be too quickly convinced of what they see," Rome says. "If we understand how we conceptualize these media images, we can begin to change our behavior."

Raggamuffin wrote:Why do people put silly photos of themselves on the internet anyway if they don't want to be misrepresented?

I see Trayvon Martin was mentioned again. The photo which was used of him showed him as younger than he actually was, and the photo of Zimmerman showed him as larger and more "mean" looking than he actually was at the time. That led to people saying that Trayvon couldn't possibly have overpowered Zimmerman.

Ben_Reilly wrote:

Raggamuffin wrote:Why do people put silly photos of themselves on the internet anyway if they don't want to be misrepresented?

I see Trayvon Martin was mentioned again. The photo which was used of him showed him as younger than he actually was, and the photo of Zimmerman showed him as larger and more "mean" looking than he actually was at the time. That led to people saying that Trayvon couldn't possibly have overpowered Zimmerman.

I'm thinking they don't generally expect to die and become a media sensation.



Or that people would be so stupid as to make one image of them shorthand for their entire complicated existence?

Raggamuffin wrote:

Ben_Reilly wrote:

Raggamuffin wrote:Why do people put silly photos of themselves on the internet anyway if they don't want to be misrepresented?

I see Trayvon Martin was mentioned again. The photo which was used of him showed him as younger than he actually was, and the photo of Zimmerman showed him as larger and more "mean" looking than he actually was at the time. That led to people saying that Trayvon couldn't possibly have overpowered Zimmerman.

I'm thinking they don't generally expect to die and become a media sensation.



Or that people would be so stupid as to make one image of them shorthand for their entire complicated existence?

So they don't mind being misrepresented whilst they're alive then?

Ben_Reilly wrote:

Raggamuffin wrote:

So they don't mind being misrepresented whilst they're alive then?

While they're alive, people have a lot more control over the stories told about their lives. Nobody expects to become a headline.

Raggamuffin wrote:

Ben_Reilly wrote:

Raggamuffin wrote:

So they don't mind being misrepresented whilst they're alive then?

While they're alive, people have a lot more control over the stories told about their lives. Nobody expects to become a headline.

If they posts a pic of themselves looking like a gangster or whatever, that's obviously how the want people to see them.

Ben_Reilly wrote:

Raggamuffin wrote:

If they posts a pic of themselves looking like a gangster or whatever, that's obviously how the want people to see them.

Really?

Raggamuffin wrote:

Ben_Reilly wrote:

Raggamuffin wrote:

If they posts a pic of themselves looking like a gangster or whatever, that's obviously how the want people to see them.

Really?

Why else would they post it?

Ben_Reilly wrote:

Raggamuffin wrote:

Why else would they post it?

To be silly?

Raggamuffin wrote:

Ben_Reilly wrote:

Raggamuffin wrote:

Why else would they post it?

To be silly?

Well then anyone seeing that pic would realise that, and not take it too seriously.

Ben_Reilly wrote:

Raggamuffin wrote:

Well then anyone seeing that pic would realise that, and not take it too seriously.

Not if it was the only picture used, though -- right?

Why isn't this photo of the same person used at least as much?



Could it possibly be that someone doesn't want this young man seen as a U.S. soldier who reads stories to little kids, but instead as a gangster (who was thus, like T.M. with his supposed drug use) not that great a loss when he died?

Raggamuffin wrote:

Ben_Reilly wrote:

Raggamuffin wrote:

Well then anyone seeing that pic would realise that, and not take it too seriously.

Not if it was the only picture used, though -- right?

Why isn't this photo of the same person used at least as much?



Could it possibly be that someone doesn't want this young man seen as a U.S. soldier who reads stories to little kids, but instead as a gangster (who was thus, like T.M. with his supposed drug use) not that great a loss when he died?

I'm not sure that being seen as a US soldier would do him any favours.

Ben_Reilly wrote:

Raggamuffin wrote:

I'm not sure that being seen as a US soldier would do him any favours.

That's deflection, Raggs. This man was unarmed, gunned down by a policeman who apparently shot him multiple times at point-blank range.

Here in the U.S., the soldier pic is going to be a lot more sympathetic to many viewers than the "gangster" pic.

So why are they only using the "gangster" one? Is there even any evidence this young man was ever in a gang? Or do we just assume that from one photo and his skin color, and decide he must have needed killing?

Raggamuffin wrote:

Ben_Reilly wrote:

Raggamuffin wrote:

I'm not sure that being seen as a US soldier would do him any favours.

That's deflection, Raggs. This man was unarmed, gunned down by a policeman who apparently shot him multiple times at point-blank range.

Here in the U.S., the soldier pic is going to be a lot more sympathetic to many viewers than the "gangster" pic.

So why are they only using the "gangster" one? Is there even any evidence this young man was ever in a gang? Or do we just assume that from one photo and his skin color, and decide he must have needed killing?

It's not really a question of which gets more sympathy is it? The people investigating the shooting need to stick to the facts as far as they can. It's not clear what exactly happened yet. The press did use a graduation pic - that's what it says.

Ben_Reilly wrote:

Raggamuffin wrote:

It's not really a question of which gets more sympathy is it? The people investigating the shooting need to stick to the facts as far as they can. It's not clear what exactly happened yet. The press did use a graduation pic - that's what it says.

This is about media depictions, which always come into play in our justice system. Media outlets are telling a slanted story about him and that could affect whether his killer ever faces justice. And it also says that the graduation/soldier photos have fallen out of circulation in favor of the gangster photo.

Ben_Reilly wrote:You do realize the same man is in both of the photos in the OP?

Could it possibly be that someone doesn't want this young man seen as a U.S. soldier who reads stories to little kids, but instead as a gangster (who was thus, like T.M. with his supposed drug use) not that great a loss when he died?

And it also says that the graduation/soldier photos have fallen out of circulation in favor of the gangster photo.

Tommy Monk wrote:Yes I bloody well did read that!!!


You should know by now that I don't lie Sassy.... unlike yourself....



"... St. Louis County Police Chief Jon Belmar said every casing found at the scene was from the officer's weapon -- but he said at a Sunday news conference that Brown was not an innocent victim.
"The genesis of this was a physical confrontation," Belmar said, adding that Ferguson police asked his office to investigate the case.
Without revealing what led to the dispute, Belmar said the preliminary investigation showed that the Ferguson officer tried to exit his vehicle, but Brown pushed him back into the car," where he physically assaulted the police officer" and struggled over the officer's weapon, Belmar said.
A shot was fired inside the police car, and Brown was eventually shot about 35 feet away from the vehicle, Belmar said...."


http://edition.cnn.com/2014/08/11/us/missouri-ferguson-michael-brown-what-we-know/index.html

Raggamuffin wrote:

Ben_Reilly wrote:

That's deflection, Raggs. This man was unarmed, gunned down by a policeman who apparently shot him multiple times at point-blank range.

Here in the U.S., the soldier pic is going to be a lot more sympathetic to many viewers than the "gangster" pic.

So why are they only using the "gangster" one? Is there even any evidence this young man was ever in a gang? Or do we just assume that from one photo and his skin color, and decide he must have needed killing?

It's not really a question of which gets more sympathy is it? The people investigating the shooting need to stick to the facts as far as they can. It's not clear what exactly happened yet. The press did use a graduation pic - that's what it says.

Wiki wrote:The Shooting of Amadou Diallo occurred on February 4, 1999, when Amadou Diallo, a 23-year-old immigrant from Guinea, was shot and killed by four New York City Police Department plain-clothed officers: Sean Carroll, Richard Murphy, Edward McMellon and Kenneth Boss, who fired a combined total of 41 shots, 19 of which struck Diallo, outside his apartment at 1157 Wheeler Avenue in the Soundview section of The Bronx. The four were part of the now-defunct Street Crimes Unit. All four officers were acquitted at trial in Albany, New York.[1]

Diallo was unarmed at the time of the shooting, and a firestorm of controversy erupted subsequent to the event as the circumstances of the shooting prompted outrage both within and outside New York City. Issues such as police brutality, racial profiling, and contagious shooting were central to the ensuing controversy.

In the early morning of February 4, 1999, Diallo was standing near his building after returning from a meal. At about 12:40 a.m., police officers Edward McMellon, Sean Carroll, Kenneth Boss and Richard Murphy, who were all in street clothes, passed by in a Ford Taurus. Observing that Diallo matched the description of a since-captured well-armed serial rapist involved in the rape or attempted rape of 51 victims, they approached him.[3][4][5]

The officers claimed they loudly identified themselves as NYPD officers and that Diallo ran up the outside steps toward his apartment house doorway at their approach, ignoring their orders to stop and "show his hands". The porch lightbulb was out and Diallo was backlit by the inside vestibule light, showing only a silhouette. Diallo then reached into his jacket and withdrew his wallet. Seeing the suspect holding a small square object, Carroll yelled "Gun!" to alert his colleagues. Mistakenly believing Diallo had aimed a gun at them at close range, the officers opened fire on Diallo. During the shooting, lead officer McMellon tripped backward off the front stairs, causing the other officers to believe he had been shot. The four officers fired 41 shots, more than half of which went astray as Diallo was hit 19 times.[1]

The post-shooting investigation found no weapons on Diallo's body; the item he had pulled out of his jacket was not a gun, but a rectangular black wallet. The internal NYPD investigation ruled the officers had acted within policy, based on what a reasonable police officer would have done in the same circumstances with the information they had.

Raggamuffin wrote:
Why do people put silly photos of themselves on the internet anyway if they don't want to be misrepresented?

I see Trayvon Martin was mentioned again. The photo which was used of him showed him as younger than he actually was, and the photo of Zimmerman showed him as larger and more "mean" looking than he actually was at the time. That led to people saying that Trayvon couldn't possibly have overpowered Zimmerman.

Raggamuffin wrote:

Ben_Reilly wrote:
This is about media depictions, which always come into play in our justice system. Media outlets are telling a slanted story about him and that could affect whether his killer ever faces justice. And it also says that the graduation/soldier photos have fallen out of circulation in favor of the gangster photo.

It doesn't mention the soldier picture actually. That article is a bit confusing because it contains pics of different people.

Raggamuffin wrote:Are the pictures on this thread actually of Michael Brown?

Lone Wolf wrote:

Raggamuffin wrote:
It doesn't mention the soldier picture actually. That article is a bit confusing because it contains pics of different people.

  

YOU do realise that he would have been a Military (or maybe National Guard) cadet at such a young age (15, 16 or 17 - while still at school..), don't you Ragga' ?

OR are you really that ignorant about such matters..    :\\:[: 

veya_victaous wrote:

Raggamuffin wrote:Are the pictures on this thread actually of Michael Brown?

No Raggs

the Story is about a Twitter protest that has developed in Support of Michael brown to comment on the way the media, try and use the most stereotypical 'black' photo.

If you go the the Source their are dozens of pairs of photos.