wow, wtf media
-
ODT Gun Show & Swap Meet - May 4, 2024! - Click here for info
Cleveland news team shows up to interview rape victim, cops send them off
- Thread starter chucklenut
- Start date
what a bunch of douche bags
If there was ever an excuse for shooting an unarmed person, this was it.
Take the media for a ride from the squad car via being tied to the back of the squad car for 20-30 miles, they may learn something during there time of the ride...
Whenever I try to stomach any of our local Atlanta news, this type of debauchery is typical - this is what the peeps want to watch evidently....
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
Cop haters show up here in 3... 2...
Cops are not in charge of enforcing "good taste."
I don't think they have any authority to order reporters off private property UNLESS the owner or resident of that property asked the cops to kick them off the premises.
Being 'appalled' is not legal authority to interfere with their right to investigate newsworthy events.
As for the "rape shield" laws, those may legitimately limit the news media in PUBLISHING the victim's identity (just like other privacy laws apply to her DOB, address, SSN, medical issues, etc.). But if the news station is just INVESTIGATING this incident and doesn't want to take some cop's write-up in the official version of the police report as the Gospel truth which omits nothing of any significance, the media has the right to investigate. Maybe they want to clarify some inconsistencies with the woman's story? Maybe they just want to publicize this bad thing that happened to her as a public service message that warns other women to be careful and not get into the same situation? Perhaps the news reporters never intended to ID the woman or challenge any aspect of her story, but just wanted to get more details of it so that it would make a more readable and relate-able article?
I'm with the news media on this one.
Now, if the rape victim had been telling these reporters that she doesn't want to talk to them and especially if she ordered them off her property, great. Let the cops chase off the reporters or arrest them for trespassing. But if that were the case, among the first words out of the cops' mouths should be "you were told to leave" rather than "I'm appalled... bad taste...never in my career have I heard of reporters doing anything like this..."
I don't think they have any authority to order reporters off private property UNLESS the owner or resident of that property asked the cops to kick them off the premises.
Being 'appalled' is not legal authority to interfere with their right to investigate newsworthy events.
As for the "rape shield" laws, those may legitimately limit the news media in PUBLISHING the victim's identity (just like other privacy laws apply to her DOB, address, SSN, medical issues, etc.). But if the news station is just INVESTIGATING this incident and doesn't want to take some cop's write-up in the official version of the police report as the Gospel truth which omits nothing of any significance, the media has the right to investigate. Maybe they want to clarify some inconsistencies with the woman's story? Maybe they just want to publicize this bad thing that happened to her as a public service message that warns other women to be careful and not get into the same situation? Perhaps the news reporters never intended to ID the woman or challenge any aspect of her story, but just wanted to get more details of it so that it would make a more readable and relate-able article?
I'm with the news media on this one.
Now, if the rape victim had been telling these reporters that she doesn't want to talk to them and especially if she ordered them off her property, great. Let the cops chase off the reporters or arrest them for trespassing. But if that were the case, among the first words out of the cops' mouths should be "you were told to leave" rather than "I'm appalled... bad taste...never in my career have I heard of reporters doing anything like this..."
or lawyers
I have to say I for one am not in the least bit surprised by this.
P.S. If you think the reporters should be barred from trying to interview the woman because following that interview the news agency they work for MIGHT (speculation) reveal too much private information in a way that's illegal, you need to familiarize yourself with the doctrine of "PRIOR RESTRAINT." The government can't ban you from exercising your First Amendment rights just because later you might cross a legal line and break the law. The government must wait for you to actually break that other law and use your rights unlawfully before they can shut you down.
Similar threads
:max_bytes(150000):strip_icc():focal(748x344:750x346)/JONES-DAKOTA-042124-4462ea8b012f4a1d9b21507fc5f0880f.jpg)
