He allegedly didn't pay child support - so murdering him is OK?

Submitted by Matt on Sat, 2010-01-30 22:33

Via Jeremy S.: Regarding Body in backyard is missing Fla. lottery winner's

"What is the point of including this in the article? It seems to me it is a reporter's way of biasing the reader to think that since he didn't pay child support (and has a CRIMINAL record for it), he is somehow a lower life form and hence not deserving of any pity or consideration. He is scum, therefore he deserved to be murdered. And of course we note that his purchases are enumerated too - again to bias the reader - "he had no right to any of the money anyway - he didn't pay child support so murdering him to take it away is not a big deal" seems to be the message. And also ,"Rolex from a Pawn shop".

What difference does it make where he bought it as long as he did so legally - would the reporter had said "Rolex from WalMart"? Again the implication that since he used the money to buy something from a pawn shop, he doesn't deserve to live. While I wouldn't go to a pawn shop, they are legitimate businesses and apparently one can get some fairly good bargains there.

If the murder victim had been a mother who won the lottery and the murder suspect was a man do you think the article would mention if the victim had been convicted of violating a court order by not allowing the father visitation rights? Would it mention that the mother had bought herself a car? Would it say that she had bought herself a fur coat from a Salvation Army store?

Misandry may be disguised but it is still misandry.

Like0 Dislike0

Comments

I did not get that message at all from the article. And I did not read anything that mentioned a 'Rolex watch' or anything that said his criminal record was because of child support. Could you be commenting on several news sources, but only providing a link to one?

In the article that is linked, it talks a lot about the man's life, but as far as his criminal record and child support , this is ALL it says:

> "When Shakespeare won the lottery, he was an assistant truck driver who lived with his mother in a rural county east of Tampa. He was barely literate, had a criminal record and was extremely generous with his newly acquired wealth. "

..and then several paragraphs later it says this:

> "Howard Stitzel, who happened to be Shakespeare's lawyer in a child support case, started working out Krasniqi's home after Shakespeare disappeared"

The article does not mention what his criminal record is for or why he needed an attorney for a child support issue. The only reason the attorney is mentioned is because he seems to be connected to this case (a suspect ?) and the reporter was explaining how they knew each other.

I thought the whole reason to describe the man was to show how vulnerable he was to be taken advantage of. I did not feel that the reporter implied that he was "scum","deserved to be murdered" or anything of that nature.

Like0 Dislike0
Submitted by Kris on Sun, 2010-01-31 00:24