Talk:Murders of Channon Christian and Christopher Newsom

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search
  1. /Archive 1
  2. /Archive 2
  3. /Archive 3
  4. /Archive 4
  5. /Archive 5

Why a Federal Charge?[edit]

Boyd was convicted of crimes by a Federal Court. The article should make it clear why. Carjacking? Accessory to murder? Why are these Federal crimes? (talk) 20:57, 19 December 2015 (UTC)

Boyd's crimes involved crossing state lines. Apparently the feds had more interest prosecuting him on federal charges than the state had in prosecuting him on state charges. The state had enough to handle with the other suspects more directly involved. --Naaman Brown (talk) 18:34, 18 January 2017 (UTC)


After the protest, a Black syndicated columnist Leonard Pitts dismissed claims that the crime was underreported, citing a 2001 report that found "Blacks and Latinos are underrepresented in news media as victims of crime and significantly overrepresented as perpetrators." Pitts added that he was "unkindly disposed toward the crackpots, incendiaries and flat-out racists who have chosen this tragedy upon which to take an obscene and ludicrous stand" and that they and any other white Americans who felt victimized by the perceived under reporting could "cry me a river."[53]

I think this portion shows a POV. The report Pitts mentions is from an advocacy group and I don't think it would be worthy of using as a source of information. I also don't think he's quoting the report, but a blurb about the report on their website. In this case it appears we're using a quote from a columnist to get this POV into Wikipedia. This is really dubious especially since there are many conflicting reports on this subject. (talk) 23:15, 15 August 2013 (UTC)

~ Agreed. Who gives a fuck about what some anonymous columnist has to say. LOTS of columnists have things to say, the only reason to include this one is because he's black, in order to perpetuate the notion that there either was or was not some racial component to this case. The facts, and the statistics either stand on their own or they do not. Wikipedia does not practice affirmative action with statistics, elevating them and the columnist that thinks they are important to a more prominent status, simply because (only because) that columnist is black. The underlying "racial" component is whether or not "reverse racism" played a role in how the media reported the story. The race of the columnist that argues against this is completely irrelevent, as is the "mixed race" nature of the jury. Also the garbage company buying the house and destroying it does not belong in the "racism" section. That's just stupid. (talk) 05:30, 23 November 2015 (UTC)

Pitts was a black columnist for a Seattle WA West Coast newspaper reacting to a report of a white supremacist protest. The reaction in Knoxville TN was to politely ask the protesters to leave; the crimes of carjacking, rape, torture and murder were sufficient and hate crime charges were unnecessary and a distraction. I think the coverage of Pitts' outraged reaction to the white supremacists' attempt to use this crime for their agenda is not fairly represented and may well be undue emphasis anyway. --Naaman Brown (talk) 18:55, 18 January 2017 (UTC)

Probably off-topic, but the media commentary of "failure" to charge hate crimes against the defendants demonstrates ignorance of when hate crime charges are appropriate. Here there were charges of capital offenses and the case was going to trial. Federal hate crime charges should be reserved for cases where for reasons of bias or prejudice against the victim or for the perpetrator, criminal charges are not being pursued against the perpetrator. At the time I encountered a notable reliable source that made the point. -- Naaman Brown (talk) 16:51, 13 August 2017 (UTC)

Excellent bias in this article![edit]

Truly, we have thrown WP:NPOV completely away! :) -- (talk) 17:28, 22 March 2017 (UTC)

This comment is pointless if you do not point out what you mean. --BabbaQ (talk) 18:51, 22 March 2017 (UTC)

Huge portions of information missing[edit]

This article immediately jumps from the crime to the trials. I'm unclear how police identified the various people as suspects in the first place.