After reading this article, I felt sick to my stomach. For people to think it is ok to kill someone because they are walking in a certain neighborhood or because of the kind of clothing they are wearing disgusts me. What do you think Zimmerman had in mind when pursuing this child with a gun? What do you think Martin had in mind when he saw this stranger approaching him with a gun? OK. As far as the child having a hoodie on, hoodies do not represent crime. If you think so then maybe you should contact the manufacturers. I do believe people should have a chance to explain their actions if possible, but I do not believe that no one has the right to kill someone for walking or for my thoughts. For the one who thought that Martin was breaking the rule of walking – where is there a rule or law against walking with tea and candy. Zimmerman was instructed not to approach the individual, but he did. He broke the rule and he shot the child and he should have been arrested. Martin did not have any type of weapon and he should not be dead. How did the police allow him to leave, but was it because his father was an ex-judge? If these types of incidents continue, we do not have much of a future left for us. What in the world was Zimmerman thinking? Remember this child was created by God and no one has a right to destroy it. Remember Karma because it does not always come back to you personally, it could come to your family or love one, but it will come.
The violent news event that I chose was on how a Belleville woman who burned her great-grandmother alive for her bingo winnings.
The Belleville News Democrat published an article and a video on the event. I feel that the author goes into too much detail on how the event occurred. They are basically telling people who read this how you can carjack someone and how to end up killing that person. I believe that they should have just kept the story short and explained that the lady had followed the great-grandmother and killed her for her earnings and leave it at that. By explaining this story in detail, the viewers have to visualize what actually went down and this can affect other people who are not familiar with the people involved. Also, this makes the family of the prosecutor embarrassed that a member of their family was willing to kill someone for 130 dollars.
In the video that is shown, I feel that they did a good job showing the emotions on the family and how hurt they were about the event. I also believe that they did a good job not showing any of the crime scene and only showing how embarrassed the killer was. They only showed a brief photo and the killer trying to hide her face in embarrassment. It told me that the lady felt that it was a miserable decision that she will regret her entire life and that it was not worth the money.
Overall, this story was only televised around the Metro-East and St. Louis area. I believe that showing how hurt the family was is a good thing. It can leave other people feeling upset and how stupid it can be to kill someone over 130 dollars. After I saw this on television, it made me ask myself, “How can killing someone for that small amount of money be worth spending the rest of your life in jail?”
I chose to do the scenario over Plagiarism and Attribution. This wasn’t as intriguing as I thought it would be, but it was still difficult in a way that I had to really think about what choices I would make if I was in that position. Basically a reporter had researched other papers and taken notes as well as adding in some of her own “claiming it was all common knowledge” and after the story published, another reporter called and claimed that she used information from her article without giving her credit: calling her out for plagiarism. They presented me with several choices and they were to immediately issue an apology and give her credit for her stories or go to the editor and show him and also explain to him what was happening. However, I feel that there should have been a worse consequence than an apology. I feel that this writer should have been fined for his actions. I chose this because a reporter cannot publish a story without the consent of the editor. If you are qualified to be a reporter then there should be no reason why you cannot publish your own story. It shows me that you are being lazy because you cannot write your own paper. Also you need to inform the editor what is going on because the story was published in his paper and he needs to know about things of such high offense. A publisher should know that he or she couldn’t get away with this type of stunt. He or she should also feel ashamed and guilty for even thinking about coping somebody else’s hard work. This goes under Being Accountable in the SPJ Code of Ethics.
They are three main theories that are said to test moral development. The three are Piaget’s Stages of Moral Development, Kohlberg’s Heinz Dilemma, and Carol Gilligan’s Theory.
Piaget’s theory was that all people develop in stages and age based. He did a study on children seeing if they could tell the difference between value and amounts. For example the instructor have two graham crackers and the little girl only had one. The instructor asked if this was fair and the little girl understood that it wasn’t because she had less; however, the instructor broke the little girl’s cracker and half making it look like they both had two crackers. The instructor again asked if this was fair and then the little girl thought it was. The same experiment was done on an older girl and she understood that it still wasn’t fair even if it looked like they each had two crackers. Just because you break one in half does not mean it is the same value.
Kohlberg did a test about a man with a sick wife but could not afford the medicine. The choices he gave to the audience was should he A) steal the medicine and not expect to get in trouble because he was saving his wife’s life B) Not steal the and let his wife pass away or C) Steal the medicine and expect whatever punishment is given for breaking the law, and based on the individual’s response Kohlberg categorized his audience.
The last theory is by Carol Gilligan. She believed that since the previous studies were done by predominantly males, then she needed to test females. She believed that men and women think and act completely different. She thought that we did not learn in stages but by what gender you were. Men were more likely to be yes or no and women thought more about people’s feelings and thought what the correct answer is by how they felt.
I do not think that there is one right theory. I can see the perspective from all three. I do not think people grow in stages and I do not think men and women are completely different or that someone is categorized by the choice they made from stealing medicine. Everyone learns differently and not one person thinks the same way as another. There may be stages in learning, but I think it is from how you were raised and brought up. Just because someone is 12 years old does not mean they understand from right and wrong. I think by that age they should, but it depends on how their guardian or parents raised them. It is not the child’s fault he didn’t know any better. I also think men and women are not the same but share many similarities. Yes, I believe women are more worried about feelings than men, but I don’t always want to talk about my feelings like girls do. That is just a stereotype that all women are feminine and all men are masculine.
When reading “How to Research a Franchise”, I learned that after you identify what brand you’re curious about, you need to first request and read the Franchise Disclosure Document. Each franchisor is legally required to provide this to prospects. If Jeff Elgin, CEO of franchise consulting from FranChoice, was a prospect he would ask a franchisor these 3 questions: “What’s your number-one focus?, Why do franchisees get in trouble?, and How are conflicts resolved?” You want to make sure that your franchisor has a strong focus towards his franchisees. You also want to make sure that they have a strong knowledge about their franchise and they know how to be successful.
Also when you are studying for a franchise, you want to watch out for red flags. You want to watch out for potential problems and weak managerial skills to outright scams when you are looking talking to a franchisor. “You also want to look at the resume of the franchisor’s top management,” says Joe Mathews, co-author of Street Smart Franchising and co-founder and principal of the Franchise Performance. Another warning sign is if a franchisor is overly excited about signing you up without hearing a lot about your qualifications. This a sign that the franchisor is in need of serious help with his/her franchise.
Finally, you want to ask the other franchisees question. According to Jeff Elgin, you want to ask, “How well prepared were you when you opened?, How effectively do the marketing programs bring customers to you?, and What is the financial reality?”. You want to make sure you are completely ready for every possible situation to be thrown at you when you start your franchisee career.
In the video you need to know the four main questions that are asked.
1. What are the benefits in owning a franchise?
2. How do you choose a franchise?
3. How much money is a franchise?
4. How much money can you make?
When becoming a franchisee you have definitely have your pros and cons. You can either be very successful or you can fail. Some cons are you get to operate business with a lot of help and you can use tested marketing programs. The cons not knowing the information you need to know about being a franchisee. They are a lot of money and their are a lot of restrictions. You need to do a lot of research and decide what you are good and what you are most likely to fail out. One thing you will always want to do is read the disclosure document. This is a very important document and you need to know everything about it and what is inside it. This document will explain all of the rules and regulations you will need to know when you are running your franchise. It will also tell you every bit of information you need to know to go out on top while running your franchise.
After watching the presentation, I felt like this professional had a good flow and rhythm. The visuals that he had in his presentation were very detailed. The speakers voice was clear and he was sharp and to the point when explaining his visuals. I felt like he also knew how to keep the audiences attention by adding some humor into his presentation. When watching this presentation, you knew the speaker was well prepared and had practiced what he was going to say multiple times.
1. I do not feel that this photo should have been made publicly due to all the tragic events that happened during this shooting. By showing this picture, all the families of the innocent victims get to see how their son or daughter passed away that day. Everyone who saw this was mentally hurt by this photo and will always have this image stuck in the back of their heads when they think of the Columbine Shooting.
2. This photograph will send the people who survived the shooting and the families of everyone in the town into further trauma. Also, friends of the victims and other students will also go into future trauma. This tragedy is probably still stuck into some of the peoples minds who witnessed the event.
3. I do believe the photographer is at the least obtrusive distance as possible. He is in a helicopter above the school and as far away as you can be from the incident. I feel that the photographer is at a respectable length and is not in anyones way.
4. This photographer is not acting with compassion or sensitivity. They are using this horrifying moment just to make a few bucks. This photographer did not think about the victims family and how this would mentally affect them. This photo should not have been made public!