So I'm free to name people until... when? When the police first question them? What if the police can't find them?
Time to sue some cops
- Thread starter Timsup2nothin
- Start date
So I'm free to name people until... when? When the police first question them? What if the police can't find them?
Timsup2nothin
Deity
- Joined
- Apr 2, 2013
- Messages
- 46,737
That's why I didn't respond to them. They were specific instances and would have specific reasoning that was fairly easy to arrive at. I was more interested in the general case, because it was a good illustration of what commonly happens.
Some crime gets committed...maybe. Some people are called "witnesses" despite having none of the characteristics associated with an actual witness in a trial. Those "witnesses" "testify," probably motivated more by the notoriety of getting their name in the paper than any interest in justice, and again without any of the characteristics of actual testimony. The cops making the arrest are only too happy to provide the name of the suspect, and even hold him up so the media can get a good photo. And the prosecution is only too happy to see the accused wrapped up in a bow before they are even arraigned.
But does this process actually benefit anyone else?
So who's in charge of deciding upon all the exceptions? Is it done on a case-by-case basis?
warpus
Sommerswerd asked me to change this
Good question, but the issue remains that innocent people's lives are being tarnished when their names are published in the media, linked to crimes they may or may not have committed. It's not right.
So they can change their names. I've done it, it's pretty easy.
The alternative is guilty people never getting media attention for the crimes they've committed. And if you try to trample freedom of media and speech in such a manner, it's individuals in the judiciary, legal and political systems who are going to get the first pass on crimes.
warpus
Sommerswerd asked me to change this
Not sure where the misunderstanding lies, but I want innocent names protected - not the names of the guilty.
"Google it yourself" is not good forum etiquette.
Which means what?
I used to watch pro figure skating and NHL hockey. I don't anymore, but I do follow each season of Survivor, The Amazing Race, and Big Brother. What exactly is your point?
Timsup2nothin
Deity
- Joined
- Apr 2, 2013
- Messages
- 46,737
"Google it yourself" is not good forum etiquette.
I consider it far better forum etiquette than "here is the link supporting my side of the story, how dare you question my point of view by searching for yourself," which is a correlated behavior. I know you aren't responsible for engaging in that correlated behavior, but it is hard to take a stand against one without committing the other now and then. I apologize.
TheMeInTeam
If A implies B...
- Joined
- Jan 26, 2008
- Messages
- 27,995
I sit corrected. The article I read definitely had him listed at 29, but that was a misprint.
I had forgotten that the UFA had a cap, probably to discourage strong rookies dodging the draft (lol) to get better contracts as UFAs. You have to wonder what the NFL is smoking not letting him enter supplemental or next year's draft though. His case seems like something that is more legit for the supplemental draft than its standard usage. I suppose he hits the open market after the season with a potential early contract payout. It will be interesting to see how teams react to essentially being able to sign a 1st rounder in free agency.
----
The problem with attempting to block the news releases on this kind of material is that you run into real "freedom of speech" issues fast. If someone wants to talk about something they saw, when does it go from "simply talking about something I or someone else observed" to "accusation and smearing of name"? Who is barred from discussing it and who isn't? What is the penalty for violating it and how is it enforced consistently?
I find the court of public opinion to be repulsive to put it mildly, but it's hard to implement something that isn't restrictive with far-reaching consequences. Just as importantly, that minimum-wage guy who is out of a job in Tim's example will still be out of one if detained, regardless of whether he's popular enough to make the news over the accusation.
warpus
Sommerswerd asked me to change this
I agree that there are some details that would need to be worked out, but they already do this with some cases - the media is barred from discussing the case until it's over, as is anyone else. I'm not sure which sort of cases this applies to, I'm guessing fairly sensitive ones.. but there's no reason why the media should be allowed to publish the names of innocent people and imply that they might have committed crime A or B.
Timsup2nothin
Deity
- Joined
- Apr 2, 2013
- Messages
- 46,737
Short answer...the cops.
When I look out my window and see the guy across the street punch his kid in the head, and a reporter turns up at my door asking what happened I say what there is to say or I don't. And my neighbor might say he didn't punch him, he pushed him, because the car was teetering like it was about to fall off the jacks.
But when the cops say "we are questioning Mr Neighbor in the matter of punching his son in the head" it carries a different weight. And when the cops seek out the reporter that changes things markedly.
That's why this issue needs to be pointed at now, while there is a case in the news. While the fact that the case is in the news is one issue, the root issue is that there is no justification for ruining someones life by questioning them in the first place. The cops media stormed this guy to force him to come in for questioning at their designated time rather than trying to coordinate it so that no harm would come of it. There is no indication that the "contribution" they got from questioning this guy forwarded their case in a time critical manner, or that they had any reason to think that it would. They could have questioned him when he returned from the draft just as well...just like they could question my minimum wage guy after he got off work. But cops operate from "What I am doing is the most important thing in the world, so if my convenience conflicts with your livelihood, tough. If you are on your way to pick up your kids, tough, they can take a bus. If whatever...tough. And if you don't cooperate fully and cheerfully that makes you guilty in my eyes."
He won't be available in free agency next year as he signed a 3 year deal. He is very happy to be a Cowboy and to be a part of what he hopes to be eventually be regarded as the best offensive line in NFL history. He seems to have taken the loss of income in stride, though I wouldn't want to be on the opposite side of the ball from him.
"Guilty" in the sense of "people who actually commit crimes", not in the legal sense.
Timsup2nothin
Deity
- Joined
- Apr 2, 2013
- Messages
- 46,737
In other words, that whole "innocent until proven guilty" doesn't apply, and the cops can just dish out punishment pending...and if they make a mistake, no big deal.
I think it is now pretty clear why Warpus wasn't quite following you.
I'm sorry you feel freedom of press is a punishment.
Timsup2nothin
Deity
- Joined
- Apr 2, 2013
- Messages
- 46,737
I'm surprised you think 8.5 million in lost revenue isn't a punishment.
I'm not surprised you think attacking freedom of the press is an appropriate response.
Timsup2nothin
Deity
- Joined
- Apr 2, 2013
- Messages
- 46,737
I'm not surprised that you haven't a clue what I think, since you evidently seldom read what you are nominally responding to.
Try writing in good faith.
Timsup2nothin
Deity
- Joined
- Apr 2, 2013
- Messages
- 46,737
Why? As stated anyone can see that you don't respond to what is written anyway. That was obvious when you made up this "freedom of the press as punishment" nonsense. I wouldn't even dignify that as a strawman, it was just an absurdity picked out of the air.
