To Anyone Even Remotely Sympathizing With Stephen Paddock, Please Stop

To Anyone Even Remotely Sympathizing With Stephen Paddock, Please Stop

Now is not the time to victimize the criminal of the deadliest mass shooting in recent history.

Only a tweet from the iconic, queen Zendaya can perfectly explain my thoughts on this matter:

Why are many media sources refusing to attack and condemn the Las Vegas gunman that killed 58 and wounded up to 600 more? More importantly, why is there such a divide between how the media describes white criminals and innocent black men? Actual murderers, like Paddock and Dylann Roof, are characterized as lone wolves and normal men. However, as soon as a person of color’s life is taken by a police officer, news sources scramble to find their most menacing image and recent criminal history. The racial hypocrisy portrayed by the media has to stop. A person of any race can be a terrorist, a murderer, an enraged psychopath--they don’t just have to be from a country placed under the Muslim ban to be declared as a threat to our country.

A CNN article, written by Emanuella Grinberg, chooses to focus on Paddock’s own brother lamenting about the shooter being “just a guy” and how he noticed nothing out of the ordinary in his own sibling. In fact, the article goes even further to paint Stephen Paddock as a kind momma’s boy, who just recently sent “boxes of cookies to his mother.”

Now is not the time to show what a good man Paddock may have been. Now is not the time to pretend that “he never gave any indication” that he was unstable, while purchasing deadly weapon after deadly weapon. And it is definitely never the right time to victimize the criminal that intentionally crafted the deadliest mass shooting in recent American history.

Let’s go back. Way back to August 2014. The month Michael Brown was murdered by Darren Wilson. In an article for The Hill, the first sentence states: “First, Michael Brown robbed a store.” Where are the peaceful anecdotes of Brown and his family, his hobbies, the gifts he might have sent his mother? Why must we immediately dive into the felonies of a killed black man? While Paddock is memorialized in the news by his closest family members, the only remembrances of Brown is Darren Wilson’s pathetic justification of killing him. In a Washington Post article, Wilson commemorates Brown by referring to him as “the big one,” “Hulk Hogan,” and comparing his face to a that of a demon. Do you see the hypocrisy here yet or must I continue?

The sad case of Eric Garner, unfortunately, is all too similar to Michael Brown’s. On June 13, 2015, The New York Times immediately explained how police were so familiar with Garner, who was apparently arrested twice the year he was killed. The “cat-and-mouse game” between Garner and the cops ends with Garner’s “refusal to be detained.” Why does the last memory of Garner have to be remembered as him fighting against the cops, while Paddock can be remembered as a meek gambler? Garner’s last moments consist of him flailing on the ground, pinned by multiple cops. Paddock’s last remembrances revolve around his innocent love of poker and dive bars.

The media plays a huge role in how anyone killed is remembered for eternity. They are, however, doing no one any favors by sugarcoating white people’s lives compared to those of others. Paddock, Brown and Garner probably all lived very fulfilling and happy lives, but by choosing to portray only one of those men in a positive light, the media downplays the cruel act of terrorism displayed by Paddock and even pacifies it.

We, as a country, need to do better in actually reprimanding white criminals and accurately honoring black victims.

Cover Image Credit: Wikipedia Commons

Popular Right Now

I'm The Girl Who'd Rather Raise A Family Than A Feminist Protest Sign

You raise your protest picket signs and I’ll raise my white picket fence.

Social Media feeds are constantly filled with quotes on women's rights, protests with mobs of women, and an array of cleverly worded picket signs.

Good for them, standing up for their beliefs and opinions. Will I be joining my tight-knit family of the same gender?

Nope, no thank you.

Don't get me wrong, I am not going to be oblivious to my history and the advancements that women have fought to achieve. I am aware that the strides made by many women before me have provided us with voting rights, a voice, equality, and equal pay in the workforce.

SEE ALSO: To The Girl Who Would Rather Raise A Family Than A Feminist Protest Sign

For that, I am deeply thankful. But at this day in age, I know more female managers in the workforce than male. I know more women in business than men. I know more female students in STEM programs than male students. So what’s with all the hype? We are girl bosses, we can run the world, we don’t need to fight the system anymore.

Please stop.

Because it is insulting to the rest of us girls who are okay with being homemakers, wives, or stay-at-home moms. It's dividing our sisterhood, and it needs to stop.

All these protests and strong statements make us feel like now we HAVE to obtain a power position in our career. It's our rightful duty to our sisters. And if we do not, we are a disappointment to the gender and it makes us look weak.

Weak to the point where I feel ashamed to say to a friend “I want to be a stay at home mom someday.” Then have them look at me like I must have been brain-washed by a man because that can be the only explanation. I'm tired of feeling belittled for being a traditionalist.


Because why should I feel bad for wanting to create a comfortable home for my future family, cooking for my husband, being a soccer mom, keeping my house tidy? Because honestly, I cannot wait.

I will have no problem taking my future husband’s last name, and following his lead.

The Bible appoints men to be the head of a family, and for wives to submit to their husbands. (This can be interpreted in so many ways, so don't get your panties in a bunch at the word “submit”). God specifically made women to be gentle and caring, and we should not be afraid to embrace that. God created men to be leaders with the strength to carry the weight of a family.

However, in no way does this mean that the roles cannot be flipped. If you want to take on the responsibility, by all means, you go girl. But for me personally? I'm sensitive, I cry during horror movies, I'm afraid of basements and dark rooms. I, in no way, am strong enough to take on the tasks that men have been appointed to. And I'm okay with that.

So please, let me look forward to baking cookies for bake sales and driving a mom car.

And I'll support you in your endeavors and climb to the top of the corporate ladder. It doesn't matter what side you are on as long as we support each other, because we all need some girl power.

Cover Image Credit: Unsplash

Related Content

Connect with a generation
of new voices.

We are students, thinkers, influencers, and communities sharing our ideas with the world. Join our platform to create and discover content that actually matters to you.

Learn more Start Creating

Abortion Bans Are Only A Small Part Of The Republican War On Women

These bans expose the Republican Party for what it truly is.


This week, several states passed laws that ban abortion after six to eight weeks of pregnancy, before most women even know that they're pregnant. The most egregious of these is Alabama — the state has banned abortion except for in cases of danger to the mother. Exceptions in the cases of rape and incest were actively voted against by the state legislature. Under the new law, any doctor who is caught giving an abortion would be sentenced to 99 years in prison, and the woman would be charged with murder.

Apart from the fact that this explicitly violates the decision of Roe v. Wade (which is the point), this is only a small part of the slow but steady degradation of women's rights by Republicans in the United States. To anyone who believes that this is simply about people being "pro-life" or "saving the children," then tell them to look at what happens after the fetus is carried to term.

Republicans oppose forcing fathers to be involved in the lives of their children that were forcibly carried to term, desires to cut food stamps and make it more difficult to feed said child, cut funding for affordable housing to make it more difficult for them to find homes, cut spending to public education so these children can't move up the social ladder, and refuse to offer the woman or her child health insurance to keep them both healthy. What about efforts to prevent pregnancy? Republicans also oppose funding birth control and contraception, as well as opposing comprehensive sexual education. To them, the only feasible solution is to simply keep your legs shut. They oppose all of these things because it is, in their eyes, a violation of individual rights to force people to do something. The bill also makes women who get abortions felons, and felons can't vote. I'll let you finish putting those two together.

If you view it from this framework, it would seem like Republicans are being extremely hypocritical by violating the personal freedoms of pregnant women, but if you look at it from the view of restricting social mobility for women, then it makes perfect sense. The Republican dogma of "individual rights" and "personal responsibility" is a socially acceptable facade that they use to cover up their true intentions of protecting the status quo and protect those in power. About any Republican policy, ask yourself: does this disperse power or consolidate it? Whether it be education, healthcare, the environment, or the economy, Republicans love to keep power away from the average citizen and give it to the small number of people that they deem "deserving" of it because of their race, gender, wealth, or power. This is the case with abortion as well; Power is being taken from women, and being given back to men in a reversal of the Feminist Movement of the 1970s.

Republicans don't believe in systemic issues. They believe that everyone has the same opportunity to succeed regardless of what point they started. This is why they love capitalism so much. It acts as some sort of great filter in which only those who deserve power can make it to the top. It's also why they hate social policies; they think that helping people who can't help themselves changes the hierarchy in a negative way by giving people who don't "deserve" power, power. Of course, we know that just because you have money and power doesn't mean you earned it fair and square, and even if Republicans believe it, it wouldn't change anything because it wouldn't change how they want to distribute power.

In short, Republican policies, including abortion, leave the average American with less money, less protection, less education, worse health, less opportunity, fewer rights, and less freedom. This is NOT a side effect. This is the point. Regardless of what Republicans will tell you about "inalienable rights" and how everyone is equal, in reality, they believe that some people and groups are more deserving of rights than others, and the group that deserves rights the most are the ones "that will do the best with them." To Republicans, this group consists of the wealthy, the powerful, and the white — the mega-rich, the CEOs of large companies, gun owners and Christians.

So, who do Republicans think deserve power and give it to? People who look and think like them. This, however, begs the question: Who do they want to take it from?

Related Content

Facebook Comments