To think men who murder their family don't deserve sympathetic news coverage?

[Felascloak]

This article in the independent has the headline "father found dead with his three children after leaving for theme park trip".
I thought it would be about some kind of accident that happened on the way home but no, it turns out he went to his Ex wives house, shot her and their three children then killed himself. The mother isn't even mentioned in the headline.

Further down there is a quote "hopefully we will remember these children for years to come, and how their lives were innocently taken by their father"
Innocently taken by their father shooting them?!! How is that innocent?

AIBU to be shocked and disgusted by this coverage?

www.independent.co.uk/news/world/americas/father-children-murder-suicide-theme-park-deaths-pennsylvania-us-mark-short-a7197006.html

God God that really is sugar coating the truth isn't it? Why do they do this?

Bad writing? Wanted to say innocent lives taken?

I don't think anyone who kills children deserve any sympathy. But you see it when mothers do it or women, there must be a reason and people pity them.

Nah, I don't care. You kill your kids you don't deserve an ounce of sympathy. That's saved for the children and the parent left behind

The headline should be "Abusive man murders his own children to get revenge on his ex wife".

YANBU

The reporting in that article is disgraceful. As is the attitude of the police - "Nothing to be learned" and basically it is the fault of the woman for not having a proper safety plan when trying to leave an abusive partner.

Yanbu but that example is mostly just the result of people not caring about grammar.

derek in this case he killed the mother and all their children, there was a history of DV and the wife had reported she was scared he'd kill her . I can't see any reason to be sympathetic other than bland "he was a great guy, why would he do this" type crap.
I'm infuriated. Going to write to the independent.

To be fair I think it's just poor writing and it's meant to imply innocence in the children - "
Innocrnt lives taken"

What a monster

"Father found dead with 3 children" is so misleading - suggests a gas leak, say, or building collapse.

Headline should at least say:
"Father murders 3 children & ex-wife, commits suicide"

It's very telling that when DV cases of murder are reported they are initially often reported in such a way as to imply it was a random killing. It's only later on that its revealed it was by a partner. It's so common that it does make me feel there is some kind of agenda going on.

That toddler had a heart transplant at only a few days old, then murdered at 2 years old.

Yanbu obviously

It's horrible and it's not even unusual.

I don't think the article is sympathetic - it says the man was an abusive bastard, basically. However, that quotation is a syntactical error- he's transposed the 'innocent' from the children to the killer. The journalist should probably have got rid of the end of the quote. It's clear when you look at it in context that he means that the children are the innocent ones.

These kind of murderers are called Family Annhilators and are far more common in the US (more guns) but there were 71 cases in the Uk over the last 30 years.

These murderers are nearly always men and are 4 main types:

http://www.wired.co.uk/article/family-killers

"Self-righteous killers hold the mother responsible for the breakdown of the family and will often call her before to explain what he is about to do.

Disappointed killers believe their family has let them down, and the killing could be sparked by something like children not choosing to follow religious customs.

Anomic killers see the family as a symbol of their own economic success, but if they suffer some kind of economic failure, e.g. bankruptcy, then the family no longer serves this function.

Paranoid killers are often motivated by a desire to protect their family from a perceived threat, such as having children taken away by social services.

I think it is also minimising to refer to previous incidents as 'domestic disputes' as if they had just had a bit of a tiff over whose turn it was to wash up. It is obvious from what the police officer says later that she was the victim of serial domestic violence. 'No lessons to be learned' - jolly good, let's move on!! How desperately sad for her family who were trying to help her escape.

It's like here though

A man shot his daughter, wife and then himself. It wasn't reported as that though.

It was 3 dead at swimming pool

Then there were countless articles talking about how nice he was and it was completely out of character

It's atrocious the way this has been worded. I totally agree with BigChoc

"Father murders wife and 3 children, then commits suicide"

It's totally minimising domestic violence

Yanbu. I see this so frequently with cases where the abusive father has murdered his wife and children. Or to see "husband murdered his wife because she cheated/was leaving him/did something else wrong and therefore deserved it."

It's very telling that when DV cases of murder are reported they are initially often reported in such a way as to imply it was a random killing. It's only later on that its revealed it was by a partner. It's so common that it does make me feel there is some kind of agenda going on.

There is. It has nothing to do with protecting the perpetrator, but ensuring that the media stay on the right side of the law.

While the press/media know almost immediately what the circumstances of a suspicious death are, particularly when DV is involved, they cannot report those until they have been officially provided with details by the police. To do otherwise leaves them at risk of court action.
The police have to be sure that there is no grounds for investigation of any other suspects prior to the notifying the press of the circumstances. Not to mention ensuring that all family members have been notified.

The "facts" are not usually released publicly until the inquest - so anything that the media publishes prior to that must be led by the police, not the media's own investigations.

I can see how there might be a threat of court action if there's a surviving child or partner, or if the perpetrator survives. But since you can't defame the dead, I can't quite see what the legal obstacles would be. Does anyone know?

The legal position is that anyone who publishes material can be legally considered "in contempt of court" if they create a substantial risk that the course of justice will be seriously predudiced.

So if a newspaper reports that a brutal father murders his wife and children and then police investigations identify evidence that leads to the arrest and charge of a third party suspect (for murder, accessory or similar) then it is highly unlikely that the suspect will be able to receive a fair trial. The press have seriously prejudiced the trial by publishing details prior to them being officially released.

Only once the police officially release the details to the press can they publish without that risk. That's why the police delay in releasing official statements, even if it seems blindingly obvious what happened; they have to be assured through forensics etc that there is no evidence of anyone else being involved.

This is an increasing problem with bloggers and keyboard warriors who do not hold press passes but who turn up at the scenes of incidents and publish whatever conversations between the authorities and neighbourhood gossip they happen to overhear.