Category Archives: Journolism

Posted on by

The New York Times tells us that “America Has a Free Speech Problem”, without noting that they are part of the problem

In 1971, President Richard Nixon sought a restraining order to prevent The New York Times and The Washington Post from printing more of the so-called “Pentagon Papers,” technically the Report of the Office of the Secretary of Defense Vietnam Task Force, a classified history and assessment of American policy and operations in the Vietnam war. The Times and the Post fought the injunctions in court, the Times winning in New York Times Co. v. United States, 403 U.S. 713 (1971). The Times was all about the First Amendment and Freedom of the Press.

So, the Times is all for Freedom of Speech and of the Press, right? Friday saw this from the Editorial Board:

    America Has a Free Speech Problem

    by The Editorial Board | Friday, March 18, 2022

    For all the tolerance and enlightenment that modern society claims, Americans are losing hold of a fundamental right as citizens of a free country: the right to speak their minds and voice their opinions in public without fear of being shamed or shunned.

    This social silencing, this depluralizing of America, has been evident for years, but dealing with it stirs yet more fear. It feels like a third rail, dangerous. For a strong nation and open society, that is dangerous.

    How has this happened? In large part, it’s because the political left and the right are caught in a destructive loop of condemnation and recrimination around cancel culture. Many on the left refuse to acknowledge that cancel culture exists at all, believing that those who complain about it are offering cover for bigots to peddle hate speech. Many on the right, for all their braying about cancel culture, have embraced an even more extreme version of censoriousness as a bulwark against a rapidly changing society, with laws that would ban books, stifle teachers and discourage open discussion in classrooms.

    Many Americans are understandably confused, then, about what they can say and where they can say it. People should be able to put forward viewpoints, ask questions and make mistakes and take unpopular but good-faith positions on issues that society is still working through — all without fearing cancellation.

There’s a lot more from the original, but either the Editorial Board have a very short memory, or they are hypocrites.

    Free Speech Is Killing Us

    Noxious language online is causing real-world violence. What can we do about it?

    By Andrew Marantz[1]Andrew Marantz (@AndrewMarantz) is a staff writer for The New Yorker. This essay is adapted from his forthcoming book, “Antisocial: Online Extremists, Techno-Utopians, and the Hijacking of the … Continue reading | October 4, 2019 | 6:01 AM EDT

    There has never been a bright line between word and deed. Yet for years, the founders of Facebook and Twitter and 4chan and Reddit — along with the consumers obsessed with these products, and the investors who stood to profit from them — tried to pretend that the noxious speech prevalent on those platforms wouldn’t metastasize into physical violence. In the early years of this decade, back when people associated social media with Barack Obama or the Arab Spring, Twitter executives referred to their company as “the free-speech wing of the free-speech party.” Sticks and stones and assault rifles could hurt us, but the internet was surely only a force for progress.

    No one believes that anymore. Not after the social-media-fueled campaigns of Narendra Modi and Rodrigo Duterte and Donald Trump; not after the murder of Heather Heyer in Charlottesville, Va.; not after the massacres in a synagogue in Pittsburgh, two mosques in Christchurch, New Zealand, and a Walmart in a majority-Hispanic part of El Paso. The Christchurch shooter, like so many of his ilk, had spent years on social media trying to advance the cause of white power. But these posts, he eventually decided, were not enough; now it was “time to make a real life effort post.” He murdered 52 people.

That the editors of the Times considered this an important article is demonstrated by the title graphic, a bit more ornate than is typical. It was spread full sized across the screen, taking up both the width and depth of my fairly large-sized monitor. This was a can’t-not-notice display, something the editors use to grab your attention.

A couple more paragraphs down, and Mr Marantz said this:

    The question is where this leaves us. Noxious speech is causing tangible harm. Yet this fact implies a question so uncomfortable that many of us go to great lengths to avoid asking it. Namely, what should we — the government, private companies or individual citizens — be doing about it?

Mr Marantz’ article continued with several suggestions, which boiled down to one thing: the government should set up some sort of approved publication space to tell us the truth. What a great idea!

Mr Marantz’s OpEd piece followed, eleven months after, Chad Malloy’s[2]Chad Malloy is a male who believes that he is really a woman, and goes by the made-up name of ‘Parker Malloy.’ article claiming that a restriction on speech actually promotes freedom of speech:

    How Twitter’s Ban on ‘Deadnaming’ Promotes Free Speech

    Trans people are less likely to speak up if they know they’re going to be constantly told they don’t exist.

    by Parker Malloy[3]While The First Street Journal’s Stylebook states that the pronouns and name appropriate to a person’s sex at birth are to be used, we do not change direct quotes, and in The New York … Continue reading | November 29, 2018

    In September, Twitter announced changes to its “hateful conduct” policy, violations of which can get users temporarily or permanently barred from the site. The updates, an entry on Twitter’s blog explained, would expand its existing rules “to include content that dehumanizes others based on their membership in an identifiable group, even when the material does not include a direct target.” A little more than a month later, the company quietly rolled out the update, expanding the conduct page from 374 to 1,226 words, which went largely unnoticed until this past week.

    While much of the basic framework stayed the same, the latest version leaves much less up for interpretation. Its ban on “repeated and/or non-consensual slurs, epithets, racist and sexist tropes, or other content that degrades someone” was expanded to read: “We prohibit targeting individuals with repeated slurs, tropes or other content that intends to dehumanize, degrade or reinforce negative or harmful stereotypes about a protected category. This includes targeted misgendering or deadnaming of transgender individuals.”

    The final sentence, paired with the fact that the site appeared poised to actually enforce its rules, sent a rumble through certain vocal corners of the internet. To trans people, it represented a recognition that our identity is an accepted fact and that to suggest otherwise is a slur. But to many on the right, it reeked of censorship and “political correctness.”

    Twitter is already putting the policy into effect. Last week, it booted Meghan Murphy, a Canadian feminist who runs the website Feminist Current. Ms. Murphy hasn’t exactly supported trans people — especially trans women. She regularly calls trans women “he” and “him,” as she did referring to the journalist and trans woman Shon Faye in a 2017 article. In the run-up to her suspension, Ms. Murphy tweeted that “men aren’t women.” While this is a seeming innocuous phrase when considered without context, the “men” she was referring to were trans women.

There’s more at the original.

The policy to which Mr Malloy referred would apply to this site as well, as we do not lie here: males are males and females are females, and the sexes simply cannot be changed.

That, however, is not my point in this article. My point is that the Times very deliberately published OpEd pieces calling freedom of speech sometimes harmful — sometimes meaning when conservative opinions are expressed — and celebrating the silencing of some speech. Were I to submit this article to the Times, or any other organ of the credentialed media, for publication, it would be disallowed because I referred to Mr Malloy as Mr Malloy, while the stylebooks used by almost all organs of the credentialed media insist on using the honorifics, pronouns and names preferred by the ‘transgendered’ rather than doing something really radical and telling the truth.

Back to the editorial first cited:

    However you define cancel culture, Americans know it exists and feel its burden. In a new national poll commissioned by Times Opinion and Siena College, only 34 percent of Americans said they believed that all Americans enjoyed freedom of speech completely. The poll found that 84 percent of adults said it is a “very serious” or “somewhat serious” problem that some Americans do not speak freely in everyday situations because of fear of retaliation or harsh criticism.

    This poll and other recent surveys from the Pew Research Center and the Knight Foundation reveal a crisis of confidence around one of America’s most basic values. Freedom of speech and expression is vital to human beings’ search for truth and knowledge about our world. A society that values freedom of speech can benefit from the full diversity of its people and their ideas. At the individual level, human beings cannot flourish without the confidence to take risks, pursue ideas and express thoughts that others might reject.

    Most important, freedom of speech is the bedrock of democratic self-government. If people feel free to express their views in their communities, the democratic process can respond to and resolve competing ideas. Ideas that go unchallenged by opposing views risk becoming weak and brittle rather than being strengthened by tough scrutiny. When speech is stifled or when dissenters are shut out of public discourse, a society also loses its ability to resolve conflict, and it faces the risk of political violence.

Also see: William Teach: NY Times Is Suddenly Very Concerned Over Loss Of Free Speech

Really? Tell me more, please! As we previously noted, The Philadelphia Inquirer, in one of its first stories on Will Thomas, the male University of Pennsylvania swimmer who now claims to be female, calls himself “Lia,’ and swims for Penn’s women’s team, deleted all of the comments from readers noting that Mr Thomas is male, not female, documenting some of those deleted comments with screen captures. The Inquirer had previously closed comments on most articles but left them open on sports stories, and Mr Thomas’ swimming victories are sports stories.

Oops! I guess that didn’t work for them!

The Times’ Editorial Board can tell us all they want how they support freedom of speech and of the press, but the truth is that they support their freedom of speech and their freedom of the press. Editors and publishers in general absolutely hate the fact that the rise of the internet took away their ‘gatekeeping’ function, and now anybody can publish whatever he wishes, without having to first be approved by someone else.

References

References
↑1 Andrew Marantz (@AndrewMarantz) is a staff writer for The New Yorker. This essay is adapted from his forthcoming book, “Antisocial: Online Extremists, Techno-Utopians, and the Hijacking of the American Conversation.”
↑2 Chad Malloy is a male who believes that he is really a woman, and goes by the made-up name of ‘Parker Malloy.’
↑3 While The First Street Journal’s Stylebook states that the pronouns and name appropriate to a person’s sex at birth are to be used, we do not change direct quotes, and in The New York Times’ original Mr Malloy is referred to by his false name.
Posted on by

The Patricians are just different from us! CNN's disgraced and fired President to get $10 million payoff to keep his mouth shut

The Patricians just aren’t like you and me. If you get canned for some reason — I’m retired now, so I’m beyond the ability of anyone to fire — you might, might! be able able to get a few hundred bucks a week in unemployment benefits. If you are terminated for cause, such as an inappropriate sexual relationship with a subordinate, something which could expose your company to a sexual harassment claim, you might not be able to get even unemployment compensation.

But life is different for the elites. From Le*gal In*sur*rec*tion:

Former CNN Chief Jeff Zucker to Get $10 Million Settlement, Agrees Not to Sue

“if WarnerMedia keeps their side of the deal, in the next week to 10 days, Zucker will receive a one-time payment of around $10 million”

Posted by Mike LaChance | Thursday, March 10, 2022 | 1:00 PM EST

CNN’s former president Jeff Zucker is getting a major golden parachute from his former employer, with the agreement not to sue them.

It’s a pretty good deal for a man who basically destroyed the network’s ratings and brand.

FOX News reports:

Ex-CNN chief Jeff Zucker to receive roughly $10 million from WarnerMedia, won’t sue: report

Former CNN boss Jeff Zucker has reportedly agreed to a deal with CNN parent company WarnerMedia over his swift exit from the network that will award him roughly $10 million in exchange for not suing after being forced to resign last month.

“Details of the confidential package are obviously being kept close to the vest, but sources tell us Zucker made the decision several weeks ago to accept what had been put on the table by his old bosses at the time of his cable news exit. What we do know is that, if WarnerMedia keeps their side of the deal, in the next week to 10 days, Zucker will receive a one-time payment of around $10 million,” Deadline’s Dominic Patten and Ted Johnson wrote, citing “sources.”

It seems that Mr Zucker’s girlfriend, who was not initially fired forced to resign, but quit a couple of weeks later, is also getting a golden parachute of a cool million.

As we have noted previously, Mr Zucker had a net worth of $60 million, plus an annual base salary of $6.3 million, before any bonuses — and how he could ever qualify for a bonus the way CNN’s ratings tanked is beyond me, but he certainly did get them — and Miss Gollust wasn’t exactly living paycheck-to-paycheck herself, with an estimated net worth of $5 million.

It seems that CNN has some dirty laundry the network wants desperately to keep out of the public’s sight. Given that the relationship between the two has been reported, by multiple sources, as an “open secret,” it has to be asked why CNN forced them out over that, rather than the ratings disaster the network had become.

Remember: the excuse for the resignation given was that Mr Zucker and Miss Gollust, both of whom are divorced, failed to report the relationship. But the head of human resources for CNN, Lisa Greene, is also an Executive Vice President, as was Miss Gollust, and the idea that someone who hobnobs with the network’s top brass didn’t know the “open secret” everyone else did is pretty difficult to swallow.

So, what does Mr Zucker know that CNN is so desperate to keep quiet?

Posted on by

The Philadelphia Inquirer tries to make a 12-year-old punk who shot at police some kind of martyr.

Thomas J Siderio Jr

I have previously noted that The Philadelphia Inquirer doesn’t like reporting on the not good guys who get gunned down in the City of Brotherly Love, but when an ‘innocent,’ a ‘somebody,’ or a cute little white girl gets killed, the paper is full of stories. I noted when the Inquirer and reporter Anna Orso tried to make an innocent victim out of young Marcus Stokes. In her story on the impact that the murder of Marcus Stokes had on E Washington Rhodes School, Miss Orso wrote, very specifically, that young Mr Stokes “was fatally shot in North Philadelphia on his way to school“, but the evidence, as printed in the Inquirer, indicates that he was not actually on his way to school. He was sitting, with five other young people, in a parked, and possibly disabled, car, many blocks away, fifteen minutes after he was supposed to be in his homeroom at school.

Miss Orso knew those facts; she is listed as either the sole or one of two authors in each of the articles I have cited. Did no one, including she, ever ask themselves any questions about why these young people, “including other Rhodes students“, were sitting in that car, ask themselves what they were doing there?

Miss Orso isn’t a stupid woman. She was graduated from Pennsylvania State University, a highly selective college, that doesn’t accept dummies. She isn’t inexperienced, having worked in journalism for seven years now, including four with the Inquirer.

Now, the Inquirer is trying the same thing with Thomas Siderio, Jr, the 12-year-old shot by the police after Mr Siderio opened fire on them:

    South Philly community mourns TJ Siderio, 12-year-old fatally shot by Philadelphia police officer

    Friends and family mourned mourned TJ this week, holding each other up as the waves of grief often took them off their feet.

    by Rodrigo Torrejón | Thursday, March 10, 2022

    Some would call him Tommy. Others Tom Dog. But most in Thomas Siderio’s tight-knit constellation of friends and family just knew him as TJ.

    A name was important, Pastor Mandell Gross said Thursday morning at Lighthouse Baptist Church in South Philadelphia. It was important during TJ’s short life. And it was important as dozens of TJ’s loved ones gathered at his funeral to say their final goodbyes.

    One by one, Gross asked the young people there, TJ’s friends, to say their names. Though he lamented the reason the community had gathered, Gross told the young people there to mourn the loss that they must try to come together in brighter days too. In TJ’s name.

At that point, the paper included a photo of Mr Siderio, one obviously taken several years earlier.

Four plainclothes officers were in the area, due to the high crime rate in the neighborhood. When they spotted Mr Siderio, who was visibly armed, they illuminated their unmarked car, the boy then shot at the officers, and took off running. One officer was injured in both eyes from flying glass, one remained in the vehicle with him, and two others got out to pursue the perp.

    A lawyer for TJ’s father previously disputed the accusation that the child fired the gun, calling it “egregious speculation” that has not been confirmed by evidence. Video and audio recordings analyzed by The Inquirer show that the gun that police say TJ tossed after shooting into the police car was found five doors down — or roughly 60 feet — from where he was fatally shot.

Sixty feet equals twenty yards, a distance a physically fit 12-year-old boy, who was already at a dead run, could cover in two seconds, but the Inquirer does not mention that.

The sappy article concluded:

    Next to his casket was a sign with a final, loving message from his parents, Thomas Siderio and Desirae Frame.

The elder Mr Siderio, inmate number NS5455, is behind bars at the State Correctional Institute Coal Township, three years into a sentence with at least two more years to serve on gun charges stemming from a murder in 2017. He has prior convictions for resisting arrest, assault, and the attempted theft of a motorcycle. He wasn’t there to have kept his son from running with a bad crowd and carrying a weapon, but, then again, as a convicted felon, he might not have been the best role model.

    “Rest In Peace TJ my son. Love Daddy and Mommy always and forever.”

    After the short sermon finished Thursday morning, the pallbearers gathered to carry TJ to his final resting place at Fernwood Cemetery. Most of the pallbearers were young, just a few years older than TJ.

    They were the friends that became TJ’s family on the streets of South Philadelphia. And with TJ’s face on their chests, the friends gathered for one last picture together, holding the young boy’s memory in their hearts.

An alleged but unconfirmed photo of Thomas Siderio Jr.

Give me a break! Young Mr Siderio was armed, with a stolen laser-sight equipped 9mm Taurus semiautomatic handgun, and he responded to the police lights by raising the weapon and firing it at the cops. This is not the sweet little angel the Inquirer has tried to make him out to be!

What was 12-year-old Mr Siderio doing out on the street, armed and ready to kill? Where was his mother, that she allowed him to have a stolen firearm, that she allowed him to go out into the streets armed? The newspaper’s Editorial Board has already opined that the killing of a young, gun-toting punk who opened fire on police young Mr Siderio should “should make every Philadelphian outraged,” blaming the city for not having safer and saner recreational outlets for boys like Mr Siderio, and blaming the state government for not passing virtue-signaling gun control laws that infringe on the constitutional rights of law abiding citizens but do absolutely nothing to stop criminals, blaming everybody but his father, who provided such a poor role model, and his mother, who didn’t supervise her son, and the boy himself, who knew he was breaking the law, and who took a shot at the police.

Let me be plain about this: had young Mr Siderio gotten away, he’d still be out on the streets, still be carrying a firearm, and still be a menace to every law-abiding citizen in the city. In just two days, March 8th and 9th, 13 people were shot in the city, and three of them died, all of them black males, but the Inquirer didn’t care enough about any of them to have a single story on any of them. I guess there wasn’t anything there out of which the newspaper could portray the victims as somehow innocents or heroic.

Young Mr Siderio is no hero, and he is no martyr. He was a young punk who thought he was a big, tough man, and had he escaped, would almost certainly amassed a long and violent criminal record. It is unfortunate that the manner of his death will cost a good police officer his job, and possible criminal charges, but the odds are high that Philadelphia is better off with Mr Siderio having gone to his eternal reward.

Posted on by

The Philadelphia Inquirer tries to get a police officer killed! If the officer is injured or killed, his blood will be on the hands of Gabriel Escobar and Elizabeth Hughes

Philadelphia Police Commissioner Danielle Outlaw, who has presided over an ever-increasing homicide rate in the City of Brotherly Love, had promised an impartial investigation into the shooting death of 12-year-old Thomas “TJ” Siderio, who shot at police officers, then turned and fled, with a 9 mm semi-automatic pistol in his hand, when he was shot and killed. About the only thing not clear was whether young Mr Siderio had tried to ditch his weapon “moments before a fatal bullet struck him in the back”.

The Commissioner has now announced that the officer will be fired.

The Philly police officer who fatally shot a 12-year-old boy will be fired, Commissioner Danielle Outlaw said

Outlaw declined to identify the officer, citing potential threats to the officer’s safety.

by Chris Palmer, Max Marin, and Rodrigo Torrejón | Tuesday, March 8, 2022

The Philadelphia police officer who fatally shot a 12-year-old boy in the back last week will be fired, Commissioner Danielle Outlaw said Tuesday.

Outlaw said the officer will be suspended for 30 days with intent to dismiss, the process by which officers are typically removed from the force.

So much for that fair and impartial investigation! Of course, the appropriately-named Commissioner Outlaw is really just Mayor Jim Kenney’s stooge, so it wouldn’t surprise me to find out that she was just following orders. If the police officers union decided on a job action over this, I wouldn’t be surprised at all.

But here’s where The Philadelphia Inquirer really messes up!

She declined to identify the officer, citing potential threats to his safety. But police sources with direct knowledge of the investigation said the officer was Edsaul Mendoza, a five-year veteran assigned to a task force in South Philadelphia. Attempts to reach him for comment Tuesday were unsuccessful, and the police officers’ union representing him declined to comment.

So, the Commissioner at least attempted to keep the officer’s name private, due to threats to his safety, threats on his life, but the Inquirer investigates, determines who the officer is, and then publishes his name!

If Gabriel Escobar, Senior Vice President and Executive Editor of the Inquirer, and Elizabeth Hughes, the Publisher and Chief Executive Officer, wanted to get the officer targeted and killed, what would they have done differently? And does anybody believe that the article authors, Chris Palmer, Max Marin, and Rodrigo Torrejón, would have included his name if Mr Escobar had not approved?

Steve Keeley of Fox29 news reported on a triple murder in the West Oak Lane neighborhood, and included the press release from the Philadelphia Police Department. The press release identified the victims as three “black males.”

Yet, when the Inquirer reported on it, writer Jenn Ladd, though she took the descriptions of the victims’ injuries almost verbatim from the police report, eliminated the fact that the victims were black. The “anti-racist” Inquirer once again censored the news Miss Hughes and Mr Escobar don’t want the public to know!

The Inquirer enjoys absolute freedom of the press, as it should. Perhaps Miss Hughes and Mr Escobar believe that revealing the accused officer’s name falls under the notion of the public’s “right to know.” But given the newspaper’s nearly everyday censorship of crime stories — Miss Hughes stated, directly, that the paper was “Establishing a Community News Desk to address long-standing shortcomings in how our journalism portrays Philadelphia communities, which have often been stigmatized by coverage that over-emphasizes crime,” — it would seem that the Inquirer is not nearly so concerned with the public’s “right to know” if it’s not information the publisher and executive editor want people to know.

Of course, a triple, clearly targeted fatal shooting in West Oak Lane? Everybody who knows anything about the city knew that the victims were black! By self-censoring that detail, the newspaper was inviting readers to guess, to speculate, and we all know what their guesses and speculations would be.

When it came to the officer’s name, however, most of the public couldn’t guess . . . and the Inquirer made sure that it wasn’t necessary to guess.

The Inquirer’s Editorial Board had already opined that the killing of a young, gun-toting punk who opened fire on police young Mr Siderio should “should make every Philadelphian outraged.” I guess that outrage means that the Inquirer ought to put a target on the officer, to try to get him killed, because that’s exactly what they have done.

If the officer named is assaulted, if he is shot and wounded or even killed, his blood will be on the hands of Gabriel Escobar and Elizabeth Hughes.

Posted on by

How far from the tree did the apple fall?

Thomas J Siderio Jr

A kid shoots at Philadelphia Police Officers, in a crime-ridden neighborhood, and winds up dead. Naturally the #woke[1]From Wikipedia: Woke (/ˈwoʊk/) as a political term of African-American origin refers to a perceived awareness of issues concerning social justice and racial justice. It is derived from … Continue reading at The Philadelphia Inquirer want to make it police brutality!

Mystery deepens on whether 12-year-old boy was armed when police shot him in the back

The family of Thomas “TJ” Siderio prepares to bury the 12-year-old boy as investigators examine whether he tossed the gun before his was fatally shot by police.

by Barbara Laker, David Gambacorta, Craig R. McCoy, and Ryan W. Briggs | Friday, March 4, 2022

While the family of Thomas “TJ” Siderio prepares to bury the 12-year-old boy shot and killed by Philadelphia police, investigators are examining whether he had tossed a gun moments before a fatal bullet struck him in the back.

Notice that both the headline and the first sentence state that the dead delinquent was 12 years old, something the police officers almost certainly did not know during the incident — it was at night — and that he was shot in the back. You have to read further to learn that young Mr Siderio was armed and fleeing the police.

Two plainclothes officers chased TJ on Tuesday night after they heard gunfire and a rear window shattered in their unmarked car near 18th and Barbara Streets in South Philadelphia.

They fired toward TJ, who they said was holding a handgun and fled east on Barbara Street.

New details reveal that the officers fired four shots in total, according to police sources.

During the first two blasts, TJ was holding a gun. But the last two shots — one of which was fatal — are “concerning,” the sources said, because TJ may have tossed his weapon before he was hit.

In any normal story, the subject is referred to by his last name in second and subsequent mentions; but here the Inquirer writers refer to him by his nickname, a not-so-subtle attempt at making him a sympathetic character. The boy shot at the police!

“(B)ecause TJ may have tossed his weapon before he was hit,” huh? Note that the first sentence says “moments before a fatal bullet struck him in the back,” emphasis mine. It would seem that if he tossed his firearm, it was almost immediately prior to being struck, too quick for officers to have noticed it and taken it into account.

Four officers were sitting in an unmarked car when the episode began around 7:20 p.m. They were Edsaul Mendoza, Kwaku Sarpong, Robert Cucinelli, and Alexander Camacho, according to police records obtained by The Inquirer. They were staking out the area because a 17-year-old boy and 20-year-old man had been seen on social media brandishing weapons, police sources said.

The officers approached TJ and a 17-year-old, who were on bicycles, police said, because they believed one of them had a handgun. They turned on their flashing lights, then heard gunfire. Camacho was injured in both eyes by shards of glass, police records show.

Apparently the officers were right: young Mr Siderio did have a handgun. They illuminated, and then a bullet was fired at them, with Officer Camacho injured by a shattered window in the vehicle. Two of the officers then exited the vehicle and took off chasing Mr Siderio. A loaded 9mm semi-automatic handgun was recovered at the scene, as were five shell casings.

According to Police Department policy, an officer would not be justified in using deadly force solely if a suspect resisted arrest or attempted to escape. Other factors are supposed to be taken into consideration, such as whether a suspect was armed, or posed an immediate threat to an officer. Officers should not shoot at a fleeing suspect “who presents no immediate threat of death or serious bodily injury,” the policy states.

Mr Siderio was armed, and his willingness to fire at police officers shows that he was an immediate threat of death or serious bodily injury. To me, shooting at an armed suspect, who had fired first at police officers, fits well within the ‘other factors’ to be taken into consideration.

Naturally, the 17-year-old at the scene claimed that the police did not turn on their lights or identify themselves before shots were fired, but even if that were the case, Mr Siderio shot first. As for believing a 17-year-old delinquent over the police, nope, not going to do that.

In the last six months, there were 652 crimes reported in the South Philly area where TJ was shot and killed, according to city police statistics. The area — bounded by Snyder Avenue south to I-76, and Broad Street west to 25th Street — saw two homicides, 36 robberies, and 23 aggravated assaults in that time period.

So, the police were there because it’s a bad neighborhood.

You might be asking, “How did a 12-year-old have a semi-automatic 9MM handgun? Where were his parents?” Well, his father, Thomas J Siderio Sr., inmate number NS5455, is behind bars at the State Correctional Institute Coal Township, three years into a sentence with at least two more years to serve on gun charges stemming from a murder in 2017. He has prior convictions for resisting arrest, assault, and the attempted theft of a motorcycle.

How far from the tree did the apple fall?

KYW Channel 3, the CBS owned-and-operated station in Philadelphia spoke with the mother of the 17-year-old who was with Mr Siderio when the incident happened:

“He had no chance in life and now, he’s gone before he could even get a chance in life,” the mother of the 17-year-old boy said.

Actually, he did have a chance at life, and he used that chance at life to try to take the life of someone else, a police officer. Naturally, there’s plenty of sympathy for young Mr Siderio, but he had his chance at life, and squandered it.

I’m enough of an [insert slang term for the rectum here] here to ask the obvious question: what if, rather than shooting at the fleeing delinquent, officers had let him get away? Then there’d be another 12-year-old carrying a gun on the streets of the City of Brotherly Love. Had the officers not fired at Mr Siderio, we’d have been reading about him soon enough in the future, perhaps the next time when he killed an innocent victim.

References

References
↑1 From Wikipedia:

Woke (/ˈwoʊk/) as a political term of African-American origin refers to a perceived awareness of issues concerning social justice and racial justice. It is derived from the African-American Vernacular English expression “stay woke“, whose grammatical aspect refers to a continuing awareness of these issues.
By the late 2010s, woke had been adopted as a more generic slang term broadly associated with left-wing politics and cultural issues (with the terms woke culture and woke politics also being used). It has been the subject of memes and ironic usage. Its widespread use since 2014 is a result of the Black Lives Matter movement.

I shall confess to sometimes “ironic usage” of the term. To put it bluntly, I think that the ‘woke’ are just boneheadedly stupid.
Posted on by

Killadelphia: Is it too early to start talking about trends in city homicides? It's not just Philadelphians killing each other; it's The Philadelphia Inquirer committing suicide.

I have (mostly) resisted the math when it comes to killings in the City of Brotherly Love so far this year, because it seemed too early in the year to draw conclusions based upon the numbers. January and February being winter months, when murders are normally less probable, seemed to me to be poorer indicators than they might be, but the city has reached early numbers which are staggering.

As of 11:59 PM EST on Monday, February 28th, the Philadelphia Police Department’s Current Crime Statistics page reported that there had been 84 homicides in the city, compared to 77 on the same date in 2021, and 60 in 2020. There had also been 60 murders as of February 28th in 2007.

That’s where the numbers start to get dicey: in 2007, Philadelphia finished the year with 391 homicides, while 2020 saw 499. In 2007, 15.35% of the year’s total killings were by the end of February, while in 2020, it was only 12.02%. 2007 was a reasonably normal year, while 2020 saw the beginning of the COVID-19 panicdemic pandemic and the death of the drug-addled convicted felon George Floyd in a legitimate arrest that went wrong, leading to the summer of fire and hate. In 2021, 13.70% of city homicides had been committed by February 28th, very close to the midway point between the rates in 2007 and 2020.

The chart at the right shows the percentages of the murders in the city as of February 28th by year, for every year since 2007, and they are all over the board. 2011 and 2014 saw over 18% of the homicides as having been committed by that date, while 2010, 2016, and 2020 saw percentages in the 12 to 13% range. The average works out to 14.52% as of the end of February.

If the average holds true, Philadelphia is on pace for 578.52 homicides in 2022, which would break last year’s all-time record of 562 by a 2.85% margin (for 578 murders) to 3.02% (for 579). If 2020’s percentage, the lowest on the chart, is the metric, it would be 698.84 killings, 613.14% if last year’s percentage turned out to be the number, but ‘only’ 448.96 if the highest percentage on the chart, 2011’s 18.71%. 449 homicides would still put 2022 into 5th place since records were kept beginning in 1960.

For 2022 to see only 400 murders, a full 21.00% would have had to already have occurred, a number far higher than anything in the historical record, and for the final number to be 500, 16.80% of the homicides would have already happened.

I admit it: I can be a numbers geek at times, and numbers tell part of the story, but not the whole thing. And with three homicides just yesterday, as of 9:30 AM EST on Tuesday, March 1st, there isn’t a single mention of any of the three homicides that occurred yesterday in the city on either the main page or the crime and justice page of The Philadelphia Inquirer’s website. To the editors of the Inquirer, which used to call itself a “Public Ledger” and “An Independent Newspaper for All the People.”

Instead, what we have is an “anti-racist news organization,” one which seems to be dedicated to reporting only those stories which cannot be seen as reflecting poorly on any minority group. The “public ledger” function has clearly gone, as the newspaper’s website main page maintains stories from several days ago, but can’t bring itself to mention that three murders occurred in the city yesterday.

Why? The Inquirer is very, very good at covering stories in which the victim was clearly an ‘innocent,’ a ‘somebody,’ or, most importantly, a cute little white girl. When Samuel Sean Collington, a Temple University student approaching graduation was murdered. Mr Collington was a white victim, allegedly by a black juvenile in a botched robbery. On December 2, 2021, the Inquirer published 14 photographs from a vigil for Mr Collington, along with another story about him. Five separate stories about the case of a murdered white guy. The newspaper even broke precedent when it came to Mr Collington’s murder by including the name of the juvenile suspect in the case, and delving into his previous record.

Oh, it’s not as though the Inquirer doesn’t publish stories about black victims, at least when it comes to black victims who are ‘innocents’. The murder of Samir Jefferson merited two stories, and four stories about the killing of 13-year-old Marcus Stokes.[1]I did note my suspicion that young Mr Stokes might not have been quite the innocent the Inquirer, and writer Anna Orso, made him out to be. A story is merited if the victim was a local high school basketball star, and cute little white girls killed get tremendous coverage: a search of the newspaper’s website for Rian Thal returned 4855 results! But for the vast majority of black victims, Inquirer coverage is a couple paragraphs, mostly in the late evening, and which have disappeared from the main page of the newspaper’s website by morning, if even that much.

Why? it’s simple: reporting about black bad guys getting killed by other black bad guys, in the words of the Sacramento Bee, “perpetuat(es) stereotypes about who commits crime in our community.” In her “apology to black Philadelphians and journalists,” publisher Elizabeth ‘Lisa’ Hughes did not use those specific words, but the effect has been the same: no reporting of stories which might tell readers what they already know: that the vast majority of the murder victims, and their killers, in the City of Brotherly Love are black males who have been involved in the gang or criminal lifestyle.

This is what happens when the Inquirer, the third oldest continuously published daily newspaper in the country, goes from being a “public ledger” to worrying about being a “white newspaper” in a “black city.”

Philadelphia isn’t even a “black city.” The 2020 census found that just 38.3% of the city’s population were non-Hispanic black, and Hispanics, who can be either black or white, made up 14.9%. Between non-Hispanic whites, 34.3%, Asians, 8.3%, and “other groups,” 4.3%, the city is 46.9% non-black, and it doesn’t take a terribly large percentage of the Hispanic population being white to get the city to majority non-black. The non-Hispanic white population of the city have certainly declined, but they are hardly gone.

Those are just numbers, but that the newspaper called Philadelphia a “black city” underscores the problem; though highly segregated by neighborhood, Philly overall has a very ‘diverse’ — and I have come to hate that word — population. Today, by Miss Hughes order, the “Independent Newspaper for All the People” has become a newspaper for the “black city” that Philly really isn’t. In a time in which Philadelphia has one of the highest poverty rates in the nation, and newspaper circulation is falling, how much sense does it make to tell half or more of the city’s population not to bother to subscribe?

Of course, the Inquirer isn’t just a Philadelphia newspaper; it serves the suburbs in a fairly large metropolitan area, and that area is very much majority white:


It seems as though Miss Hughes has told about 80% of the potential metropolitan area subscribers not to bother; the newspaper isn’t for them.

I am a big fan of newspapers, having been a paper boy starting in junior high school, delivering the Lexington Herald and Lexington Leader in my hometown of Mt Sterling, Kentucky. I used to, before retirement, pick up the dead trees edition of the Inquirer to take to the plant every day before work when I lived in the Keystone State, and I’m a digital subscriber even today, now that I have retired back to my home state. Being mostly deaf now, print media is important to me. And something I very much regret is seeing what was once one of the nation’s premier newspapers not only having gone downhill in terms of circulation — something happening to almost every print newspaper these days — but seemingly committing suicide by its editorial policies.

References

Posted on by

The future of journalism? Today's journalism students will be tomorrow's reporters and editors

I have frequently referred to journolism, which some might think is a misspelled. The spelling ‘journolist’ or ‘journolism’ comes from JournoList, an email list of 400 influential and politically liberal journalists, the exposure of which called into question their objectivity; I use the term ‘journolism’ frequently when writing about media bias.

Now, thanks to a tweet from David Huber, an editor and writer at The College Fix, I found this, from the Columbia University student newspaper, the Columbia Daily Spectator:

Letter from the Editor: Why we published op-eds arguing against the mask mandate on campus

by Senem Yurdakul, Editorial Page Editor | Monday, February 28, 2022 | 2:02 AM EST

On February 8, we published a piece titled “Why can’t we move on from COVID-19?” The decision to publish the piece came after days of conversations among our staff on public discourse, freedom of speech, and our responsibility to our community.

Our mission at the Opinion section of Spectator is to reflect and direct campus and community discourse. But what does that even mean?

Reflecting campus discourse means being present in the spaces where discourse arises and evolves. It means being members of different student organizations, participating in class discussions, and listening to the people around us when they share their experiences as members of the Columbia community. It means avidly reading Columbia Confessions to find the opinions students might not otherwise find acceptable to voice out loud or with their names attached. It means witnessing the contemporary politics of our campus unfold around us, choosing not to remain bystanders, and bringing what we see into public dialogue.

It also means being aware that campus discourse resumes in our absence and acknowledging that there are spaces that we do not have access to, narratives that aren’t familiar to us, and stories that aren’t ours to tell. It is about coming to the office for all staff meetings and asking “Whose voices are we missing?” It is about knowing that just because certain opinions are not articulated in public, it does not mean that they are absent from campus discourse.

Heaven forfend! A student, at Columbia University, a liberal Ivy League school in liberal New York City, noting that there are people other than the #woke[1]From Wikipedia: Woke (/ˈwoʊk/) as a political term of African-American origin refers to a perceived awareness of issues concerning social justice and racial justice. It is derived from … Continue reading who have opinions that should be noted? As I responded to Mr Huber, “Not to worry: when they graduate and go to work for the @PhillyInquirer, they’ll find out that dissenting opinions are wholly unwelcome by editor Gabriel @escobarinquirer, publisher Lisa Hughes, and the rest of the #woke staff.”

But there’s more: Miss Yurdakul recognized that there are “certain opinions”, held by Columbia students, which are “not articulated in public.” Translation: expressing those opinions in public will result in negative consequences for those who speak them; that’s why sixteen University of Pennsylvania women’s swim team members had to keep their identities concealed. Of course, further down, Miss Yurdakul states that they “draw strict lines between hate speech and free speech,” so it’s entirely possible that, were the UPenn situation part of Columbia’s, those expressing the opinion that Will Thomas should not be allowed to compete athletically as a woman might be rejected.[2]A site search for “Lia Thomas” turned up only one story about Mr Thomas’ participation in the Ivy League championships, and offered no opinions. The article did note the controversy … Continue reading

When we received Gabe Weintraub and Matt Keating’s pieces in our inbox, it was a clear indication to us that there is a present and ongoing discussion on masks within the student body. To have ignored these pieces because of their controversial takes would have been in direct defiance of our mission to reflect campus conversations. To have ignored the letters to the editor we have received by Ned Latham and Leslie A. Zukor in response to Weintraub and Keating’s pieces would have undermined our commitment to fair representation.

Miss Yurdakul put it out there: there is clearly a serious disagreement on Columbia’s campus about the mask mandates, but it is a debate which does not raise “hate speech” questions.

When, there is a second layer of our mission: directing campus discourse. When we publish an op-ed, letter to the editor, or column, we provide a platform for the writer’s story, voice, and argument. The engagement we have received in the past few weeks has allowed us to understand that the voices we amplify directly impact campus dialogue. That is a level of influence that we take incredibly seriously. We know that while our platform allows us to provide space for voices that are often institutionally marginalized and silenced, it can also create an echo chamber or worse, highlight harmful ideas if our process is hasty or heedless. As editors, we aim to ensure that our journalism does not harm our readers, our community, or our writers. We draw strict lines between hate speech and free speech. Our pieces undergo three rounds of editorial edits, three rounds of copy edits, and two rounds of edits by our managing editor and editor in chief. We are always asking ourselves and our writers what our reasons for publishing a piece are.

There are two very important parts of this paragraph. First, the Columbia Daily Spectator has far, far more editorial reviews than we see in the credentialed media these days; broadcast media have to get the news on too quickly, while newspapers have been cutting reportorial and editorial staff to the bone. When the Daily Spectator staffers get out into the real world, looking for journalism jobs, not only will they find disappointing salaries at the entry level, and bemoaning the fact that their opportunities are only at the Allentown Morning Call or the Lexington Herald-Leader, rather than The New York Times or Washington Post, but they’ll quickly see that what few editors there are, are a harried bunch who provide little oversight and too-cursory glances at their work. You can see this in the poor editing, incomplete journalism, and lousy grammar in so many newspapers.

But the second part is that they “aim to ensure that our journalism does not harm our readers, our community, or our writers.” This is what has led so many newspapers to censor the truth, to not report the news, or not report it fully, if telling the whole truth might, in the words of the Sacramento Bee, “perpetuat(e) stereotypes about who commits crime in our community.” The McClatchy Mugshot Policy worries that publishing police mugshots “disproportionately harms people of color and those with mental illness,” so they have a policy against it, and the Herald-Leader seems to make its exceptions to the policy when the charged offenders are white, to actually skew the truth.

Miss Yurdakul continued to state that they would continue to provide a platform for the opinions of others, which seems to be more than the Herald-Leader or Inquirer do, but I have to wonder about what the limits of what she, and others, at the Columbia Daily Spectator would impose? Would the Daily Spectator accept an opposing OpEd piece on whether biological males should be allowed to compete in women’s sports as ‘transgender women’, or would that be regarding as “harm (their) readers, (their) community, or (their) writers”? Would it be considered “hate speech”, and be put beyond the pale?

The New York Times had had, for decades now, the masthead blurb, “All the News That’s Fit to Print”, but the Times, among other great, and not-so-great, newspapers across this country have taken editorial decisions that some things, some actual news, some news that’s just politically incorrect, simply isn’t fit to print these days.

We’re seeing it every day, when The Philadelphia Inquirer declares itself to be “anti-racist” and then just plain doesn’t give its readers the news.

Miss Yurdakul, and her compatriots at the Columbia Daily Spectator, and at journalism schools across the country, are going to be the next people hired into the nation’s newsrooms, and some of them will last and become editors. Will they maintain Miss Yurdakul’s commitment to publish opposing viewpoints, to actually inform the public of the debates that are going on out there, or will they follow today’s line, and censor news that doesn’t fit their political views, and their ‘social justice’ goals?

References

References
↑1 From Wikipedia:

Woke (/ˈwoʊk/) as a political term of African-American origin refers to a perceived awareness of issues concerning social justice and racial justice. It is derived from the African-American Vernacular English expression “stay woke“, whose grammatical aspect refers to a continuing awareness of these issues.
By the late 2010s, woke had been adopted as a more generic slang term broadly associated with left-wing politics and cultural issues (with the terms woke culture and woke politics also being used). It has been the subject of memes and ironic usage. Its widespread use since 2014 is a result of the Black Lives Matter movement.

I shall confess to sometimes “ironic usage” of the term. To put it bluntly, I think that the ‘woke’ are just boneheadedly stupid.

↑2 A site search for “Lia Thomas” turned up only one story about Mr Thomas’ participation in the Ivy League championships, and offered no opinions. The article did note the controversy over Mr Thomas, and that Columbia’s head coach Diana “Caskey said that Ivy League communications has asked her not to comment on Thomas’ performance and eligibility.”
Posted on by

Three more dead in Philly, and the Inquirer doesn’t care But Larry Krasner and the Inquirer sure do care about cops who are exonerated!

As both of our regular readers know, I check the Philadelphia Police Department’s Current Crime Statistics page on weekday mornings, and the news was pretty depressing. As we noted on Wednesday, the city had crept to one above the same-day homicide total for 2021. But as of 11:59 PM EST on Wednesday, February 23rd, the total had jumped by three to 79 homicides, vis a vis ‘just’ 75 on the same date last year, and 53 in 2020.

Make no mistake here: 2020 was a bloody year, finishing with 499 murders, just one short of the then-record of 500, set during the crack cocaine wars of 1990. But 2021 didn’t just surpass the old record; 562 homicides blew it out of the water.

Wednesday’s killings? There wasn’t a single story on any of them either on the main page or the crime page of The Philadelphia Inquirer’s website, something which was no surprise at all. There were, however, a couple of related stories which caught my attention. In one, “The Inquirer’s look at itself ignores the paper’s history of exposing racial injustice: The sweeping claims in ‘Black City, White Paper’ are overly broad and shamelessly short-sighted, writes Huntly Collins, a reporter who spent 18 years at the newspaper,” a LaSalle University journalism professor and former Inquirer reported responded to the newspaper’s crying 21st century judgement about its 19th and 20th century history. Though he avoided the use of the term #woke[1]From Wikipedia: Woke (/ˈwoʊk/) as a political term of African-American origin refers to a perceived awareness of issues concerning social justice and racial justice. It is derived from … Continue reading, he was clearly referring to them as he made it clear that the paper’s history needed to be viewed through the lens of the circumstances of the times. He noted that perhaps the paper could have hired more minority staff, but also noted that newspapers in general had been shedding journalists’ positions for a couple of decades now, and union contracts specified that, in layoffs, the last hired were the first fired.

The Inquirer’s look at itself also glossed over the economic crisis facing local newspapers as they strive to hire more minority journalists at a time when newspaper jobs are in steep decline. Since 2004, some 1,800 newspapers have folded, including 60 dailies. Nationwide, newspaper employment of editorial staff has plummeted to just 30,000, down a whopping 57 percent from 2008. The Inquirer once employed some 680 reporters, editors and other editorial staff. Today, that number is down to about 200. Even the best laid plans to diversify the staff falter when confronted with economic forces that shrink the size of the pie rather than enlarging it.

Publisher Elizabeth “Lisa” Hughes has basically told readers that the newspaper she runs will not report on things which could lead to a negative image of minority populations, that the newspaper she runs will self-censor the truth in favor of “anti-racism” and social justice.[2]Commenter Lavern Merriweather stated that I must be racist for noting that the Inquirer hides the racial aspect of the news even in the stories that it covers, and that, not being black myself, I … Continue reading The plain truth, the unvarnished truth, is apparently a bad thing.

Then there was this gem:

DA Krasner denounces dismissal of charges against two officers charged with beating man with special needs

Krasner said he sees “a disturbing pattern” of judges dismissing charges against police officers.

by Mensah M Dean | Tuesday, February 22, 2022

Philadelphia District Attorney Larry Krasner on Tuesday criticized the decision by a judge to dismiss charges against two police officer brothers whom he charged in April with chasing and beating a man with special needs after falsely accusing the man of tampering with cars in their far Northeast neighborhood.

Krasner, who pledged after taking office in 2018 to hold accountable officers who break the law, suggested that the decision by Municipal Court Judge William Austin Meehan Jr. during a preliminary hearing to clear the two brothers — former Police Inspector James Smith and former detective Patrick Smith — was part of a larger pattern of judges going easy on accused police.

“We are seeing a disturbing pattern of criminal cases against police officers getting charges against them thrown out by judges during the preliminary hearing phase, only to be reinstated on appeal. The law applies equally to everyone,” Krasner said. “Philadelphians should ask why some judges are finding no accountability at a preliminary hearing for police when they commit the same crimes that get everyone else held over for trial.”

Krasner, who has frequently clashed with the officers’ labor union, added: “My office will consider all possible avenues for seeking justice in this matter, and to hold accountable the individuals who chased, terrorized, and assaulted a young and innocent man with Asperger syndrome.”

There’s more at the original, but Judge Meehan heard the testimony of the alleged victim, and then dismissed the charges against the tweo former police officers.

“The court dismissed all charges…because the evidence presented by the prosecutor failed to prove that a crime was committed,” said defense attorney Fortunato Perri, who represented James Smith. “Inspector Smith and Detective Smith have dedicated decades of their lives proudly protecting and serving the citizens of Philadelphia. They look forward to continuing those efforts in the future.”

Of course, the District Attorney ought to be familiar with dismissed charges, because that’s what he does very frequently: since District Attorney Krasner took office, the percentage of firearms charges resulting in convictions has dramatically decreased. In Mr Krasner’s first year in office, 2018, 57% of Violations of Uniform Firearm Act only arrests resulted in convictions, with 35% having the charges dismissed. Those trend lines crossed the following year, with a larger percentage of charges dismissed, 47%, than resulting in convictions, 43%, and only got worse in 2020 and 2021, 49%/42%, and 62%/36% respectively. In their attempts to get illegal firearm possessions off the streets, the Philadelphia Police Department increased the number of VUFA arrests each year, and each year Mr Krasner’s office let the (alleged) malefactors off the hook in increasing numbers. Mr Krasner said:

This office believes that reform is necessary to focus on the most serious and most violent crime, so that people can be properly held accountable for doing things that are violent, that are vicious, and that tear apart society. We cannot continue to waste resources and time on things that matter less than the truly terrible crisis that we are facing.

The alleged injuries that the officers’ alleged victim suffered included “a black eye and abrasions on the back of his head, elbows, and knees,” pretty much the type of crimes the District Attorney doesn’t care about prosecuting anyway . . . unless they are committed by a police officer.

So, we have seen 79 homicides in 54 days, 1.4630 per day, ahead of the pace set last year, and at least at the time of writing this article, 10:38 AM EST on Thursday, February 24th, the Inquirer hadn’t even noticed, but was still promoting the softer-than-soft on crime, George Soros-sponsored District Attorney’s story from two days earlier. I have said it before: to the “anti-racist” Philadelphia Inquirer, black lives — and if any of the victims had been white, the paper would have been all over the case — really don’t matter.

References

References
↑1 From Wikipedia:

Woke (/ˈwoʊk/) as a political term of African-American origin refers to a perceived awareness of issues concerning social justice and racial justice. It is derived from the African-American Vernacular English expression “stay woke“, whose grammatical aspect refers to a continuing awareness of these issues.
By the late 2010s, woke had been adopted as a more generic slang term broadly associated with left-wing politics and cultural issues (with the terms woke culture and woke politics also being used). It has been the subject of memes and ironic usage. Its widespread use since 2014 is a result of the Black Lives Matter movement.

I shall confess to sometimes “ironic usage” of the term. To put it bluntly, I think that the ‘woke’ are just boneheadedly stupid.

↑2 Commenter Lavern Merriweather stated that I must be racist for noting that the Inquirer hides the racial aspect of the news even in the stories that it covers, and that, not being black myself, I have no right to comment on the black community in the City of Brotherly Love.
Posted on by

Philadelphia 12-year-old charged with murder Why do we have to rely on the New York Post to tell us what The Philadelphia Inquirer will not?

This site has noted many times previously the Lexington Herald-Leader’s refusal to print mugshots of people accused of crimes, even violent crimes, if they are black. The Philadelphia Inquirer takes it further, and, as far as I can tell, doesn’t print mugshots at all, which means that, in the case of 16-year-old Qiyam Muhammad, readers of the Inquirer don’t know what he looks like, and cannot help the Philadelphia Police Department find young Mr Muhammad, who, as of Friday morning, was still on the lam.

We shouldn’t have to go to the New York Post for the information, but we do:

    Teens and boy, 12, charged with murder in Philadelphia carjacking

    By Joshua Rhett Miller | Friday, February 18, 2022 | 10:22 AM EST | Updated 10:46 AM EST

    John Nusslien. Photo by Philadelphia Police Department, and is a public record. Click to enlarge.

    A 12-year-old boy and two teens are facing murder charges in the savage beating death of an elderly man during a carjacking in Philadelphia, authorities said.

    The trio of young suspects are accused of attacking Chung Yan Chin, 70, during a violent carjacking in the city’s Mayfair section on Dec. 2, police said.

    Prosecutors allege the youngsters walked up to Chin and knocked him to the ground as they started punching and kicking him to the face, the Philadelphia Inquirer reported.

    Police said “unknown offenders” then took off with Chin’s Toyota Camry.

    Chin was rushed to a hospital in critical condition with a brain injury and facial fractures, court documents show. He died from his wounds weeks later on Dec. 21.

    “Justice has to be done,” Mayfair resident Amy Ford told WPVI. “It is just not fair. It is sickening. It is terrible. It is too close to home.”

    Qiyam Muhammad. Photo by Philadelphia Police Department, and is a public record. Click to enlarge.

    John Nusslein, 18, of Northeast Philadelphia, was charged last month in Chin’s slaying, while an arrest warrant has been issued for Qiyam Muhammad, 16, police told The Post.

    The 12-year-old boy, who has been charged with murder as an adult, is not being identified by The Post due to his age.

    Both Nusslein and the 12-year-old are being held without bail and attorneys representing them did not return calls seeking comment, the Inquirer reported.

Note that the Philadelphia Police Department had a mugshot of Qiyam Muhammad on hand, which tells us the obvious: young Mr Muhammad had been arrested previously.

Will District Attorney Larry Krasner really continue to charge the 12-year-old as an adult? I would guess not, because Mr Krasner is both soft-hearted and soft-headed. And it is always possible that the presiding judge will refuse to accept an adult charge for a 12-year-old. Would the courts accept a charge which could keep a 12-year-old locked up for the rest of his miserable life? Any competent attorney hired by the boy’s parents — assuming that he has any — or appointed by the court, would move to transfer the charges to the juvenile justice system.

Murder is not normally an entry-level crime, so I have to wonder: is this the 12-year-old’s first (alleged) crime? He was, again, allegedly, running with an 18-year-old and a 16-year-old, obviously out to commit a violent crime, even if they never intended to kill the victim. Normally, boys the ages of Messrs Muhammad and Nusslien don’t run gang with 12-year-olds.

There’s more to this story than we have been told.