Crime scene privacy bill in Newton

[Craig234]

There is a larger issue here.

Sometimes you can't have one right without some abuse of it. The right to free speech doesn't allow just Rachel Maddow, it allows Westboro Church.

The killing of the person who knew the Boston bombers by the FBI is very suspicious. They *say* he was just about to sign a confession when he went into a rage threatening agents and they had to shoot him. There are all kinds of discrepencies between different versions of the story of what happened, including reporting that his wounds shot an execution style shot to the back of the head.

Should the public have access to that information, those photos, as one of the checks on the FBI's behavior? There's a solid case that we should.

But take the same issue in another case - say Trayvon Martin - and perhaps the photos offer nothing bt tasteless sensationalism for profit.

How do you make a policy that releases one set and not th eother? Who decides? If you create an exception for 'these are just for bad taste', then of course th epeople wanting to hide the photos showing wrongdoing will quickly misuse that exception to hide the photos showing wrongdoing.

If you only look at one case of tasteless exploitation, it's easy to rush to rules wanting to restrict access. But that ignores the other impact of doing so.

The FBI has invesigated nearly 200 cases ittself of its own agents in shootings. They have found zero cases of wrongdoing, 100% justified.

Even if they had found some cases of wrongdoing, it wouldn't mean the process was unreliable and would not sometimes not find fault where it should.

I'm open to plicies that find a middle ground, and I'm disgusted by the media's misuse and abuse of these things, but sometimes there's a price to pay for an important right.

Similarly, the release of 911 calls have sometimes been sensationalized tastelessly for profit and other times provided the public important information about the truth.

I will say in a case like Newtown it cries out for not releasing the photos and I'd like to find a policy allowing them to not be released.

I just want to balance it with not restricting some other set of photos that provide legitimate information to the public.

I'm not sure how to split that hair in a policy. Hopefully it can be split.

 

[Mursilis]

There is a larger issue here.

Sometimes you can't have one right without some abuse of it. The right to free speech doesn't allow just Rachel Maddow, it allows Westboro Church.

The killing of the person who knew the Boston bombers by the FBI is very suspicious. They *say* he was just about to sign a confession when he went into a rage threatening agents and they had to shoot him. There are all kinds of discrepancies between different versions of the story of what happened, including reporting that his wounds shot an execution style shot to the back of the head.

Should the public have access to that information, those photos, as one of the checks on the FBI's behavior? There's a solid case that we should.

But take the same issue in another case - say Trayvon Martin - and perhaps the photos offer nothing bt tasteless sensationalism for profit.

How do you make a policy that releases one set and not th eother? Who decides? If you create an exception for 'these are just for bad taste', then of course the people wanting to hide the photos showing wrongdoing will quickly misuse that exception to hide the photos showing wrongdoing.

If you only look at one case of tasteless exploitation, it's easy to rush to rules wanting to restrict access. But that ignores the other impact of doing so.

The FBI has investigated nearly 200 cases itself of its own agents in shootings. They have found zero cases of wrongdoing, 100% justified.

Even if they had found some cases of wrongdoing, it wouldn't mean the process was unreliable and would not sometimes not find fault where it should.

I'm open to policies that find a middle ground, and I'm disgusted by the media's misuse and abuse of these things, but sometimes there's a price to pay for an important right.

Similarly, the release of 911 calls have sometimes been sensationalized tastelessly for profit and other times provided the public important information about the truth.

I will say in a case like Newtown it cries out for not releasing the photos and I'd like to find a policy allowing them to not be released.

I just want to balance it with not restricting some other set of photos that provide legitimate information to the public.

I'm not sure how to split that hair in a policy. Hopefully it can be split.

Very well said, and yes, we're looking at splitting hairs here. When you're forced to do that, I think the best policy is to err on the side of openness.

 

[woolfe9998]

I don't oppose releasing information, generally speaking, to the public. I think the best policy is to disallow the release of crime scene photographs in particular. Two reasons, only one of which has already been mentioned: the privacy of the victims.

It also has to do with a defendant's right to a fair trial. Crime scene photos are incendiary and elicit an emotional reaction. Jurors may or may not be allowed to see them, depending on the facts and the judge's decision. If they're pre-released to the media, everyone has already seen them. Seeing crime scenes photos makes jurors want to convict, even if the evidence is threadbare.

The general public is not the police or the jury. They generally do not need to see lurid crime scene photos. If we're concerned about government transparency where the cops are the alleged wrongdoers, then create an exception where the suspect is a cop. I don't, however, see a good reason to allow it in the general case, and I see at least two very good reasons to not allow it.

 

[woolfe9998]

I'm not saying there's a conspiracy here, but there are definitely fishy things about the incident that should be addressed: http://theconservativetreehouse.com...-shooting-discrepancies-not-conspiracies-yet/

I got as far as "why did he need a bulletproof vest if he planned to kill himself." Here's a lesson in critical thinking: maybe he didn't plan to kill himself originally but in the heat of the moment, after contemplating his inevitable fate, he killed himself. Or here's one even more obvious: he didn't want to get shot before he could finish the job he set out to do. Duh.

This is why I quit reading ct crap a long time ago.

 

[Zargon]

There is a larger issue here.

Sometimes you can't have one right without some abuse of it. The right to free speech doesn't allow just Rachel Maddow, it allows Westboro Church.

The killing of the person who knew the Boston bombers by the FBI is very suspicious. They *say* he was just about to sign a confession when he went into a rage threatening agents and they had to shoot him. There are all kinds of discrepencies between different versions of the story of what happened, including reporting that his wounds shot an execution style shot to the back of the head.

Should the public have access to that information, those photos, as one of the checks on the FBI's behavior? There's a solid case that we should.

But take the same issue in another case - say Trayvon Martin - and perhaps the photos offer nothing bt tasteless sensationalism for profit.

How do you make a policy that releases one set and not th eother? Who decides? If you create an exception for 'these are just for bad taste', then of course th epeople wanting to hide the photos showing wrongdoing will quickly misuse that exception to hide the photos showing wrongdoing.

If you only look at one case of tasteless exploitation, it's easy to rush to rules wanting to restrict access. But that ignores the other impact of doing so.

The FBI has invesigated nearly 200 cases ittself of its own agents in shootings. They have found zero cases of wrongdoing, 100% justified.

Even if they had found some cases of wrongdoing, it wouldn't mean the process was unreliable and would not sometimes not find fault where it should.

I'm open to plicies that find a middle ground, and I'm disgusted by the media's misuse and abuse of these things, but sometimes there's a price to pay for an important right.

Similarly, the release of 911 calls have sometimes been sensationalized tastelessly for profit and other times provided the public important information about the truth.

I will say in a case like Newtown it cries out for not releasing the photos and I'd like to find a policy allowing them to not be released.

I just want to balance it with not restricting some other set of photos that provide legitimate information to the public.

I'm not sure how to split that hair in a policy. Hopefully it can be split.

you don't.

information is available or its not

you cant trust the government to 'make the right call' they obviously suck at it.

where was there want for privacy when they were jetsetting around the nation on private jets and cruising in limos to visit all the us statehouses to cry for gun control?

they want a single edge sword, THEIR EDGE.

they lost that priveldge when they attmepted to get personal gain from it

The heartbroken relatives feared video and photos taken in the investigation of the shocking mass shooting would fall into the hands of online bloggers or gun-nut conspiracy theorists.

Read more: http://www.nydailynews.com/news/nat...-privacy-bill-article-1.1363687#ixzz2XRvl2OQU

see? they are afraid someone THEY DONT LIKE will get infomation, after the people they wanted to have it already do.

this is not them wanting privacy, its them wanting selective privacy from specific groups(apparantly 'bloggers' are super evil)


you are very pro cops wearing cameras if I recall correctly, they could just ya know, make that info not public 'because the victims!' and so much for that evidence


allowing the gov to decide if evidence SHOULD be public is giving them way too much power, especially in the wake of recent events ala PRISM and now the CIA embedding analysts with NYPD ETC

 

[Craig234]

Zargon, first, I fnd your smear of victim families as 'jetsetting' and 'limo ridiing' for personal gain when they are being upstanding people out fighting to try to save other childrens' lives to be despicable and disgusting. They are being excellent citizens for a good cause, agree with it or not.

Second, you're right, I support a lot more cameras with police for the sake of justice. Bu far the most important thing with that is for the footage to be available for criminal justice - department reviews, and trials. Any release of it to the public is a secondary issue for discussion and the same issues apply as with police photos and 911 calls.

 

[Rebel_L]

If it was up to me I would ban the media from printing the pictures and playing the recordings, they can write summaries to inform people. I would however make the photos and recordings available to anyone with an information request. If media wants to publish photos or recordings for profit they can negotiate with the victims families about it, but without that permission the average citizen will have to take it upon himself to take a peak rather than having it delivered by the media.

 

[smackababy]

If it was up to me I would ban the media from printing the pictures and playing the recordings, they can write summaries to inform people. I would however make the photos and recordings available to anyone with an information request. If media wants to publish photos or recordings for profit they can negotiate with the victims families about it, but without that permission the average citizen will have to take it upon himself to take a peak rather than having it delivered by the media.

I've always wondered if we'd have had as many school shootings if there was a media blackout enforced on Columbine. That got so much media coverage and martyred the two that did it. You would be hard pressed to find anyone above the age of say 10, in 1999, that can't name Dylan and Eric. They were portrayed so much in the media. I would wager 99% of people not effected can, without Googling, name a single victim.

Our culture is the problem, not guns. But, taking at least part of the responsibility for the atrocities that occur in situations like these is a very scary thing for most people.

 

[Craig234]

I've always wondered if we'd have had as many school shootings if there was a media blackout enforced on Columbine. That got so much media coverage and martyred the two that did it. You would be hard pressed to find anyone above the age of say 10, in 1999, that can't name Dylan and Eric. They were portrayed so much in the media. I would wager 99% of people not effected can, without Googling, name a single victim.

Our culture is the problem, not guns. But, taking at least part of the responsibility for the atrocities that occur in situations like these is a very scary thing for most people.

This seems pretty confused ot me on a number of points.

Most people can name OJ Simpson, Adolf Hitler, Pol Pot, Jim Jones, Charles Manson. So?

The Boston Bombers got a lot of press, too. So?

There are sometimes copycat criminals. That's not generally enough reason to ban media coverage of them.

That's happened once that comes to mind, sort of - Germany's restrictions on the use of te swastika or Nazi symbols. And I can understand that. But that's a one-off.

'Our culture is the problem, not guns' - that's pretty nonsensical.

First, with our culture but without guns, how many of these shootings would there be? Oh, not so many? So just maybe guns actually play a role?

Second, do you have any solution to the 'culture' issue? Can you change the 'culture' so that there is never a Charles Manson or a Columbine or a Newtown? No, you can't.

So you just want to wave your finger and chant 'culture' and obstruct any policies that might actually reduce the violence.

Makes no sense.

For peope who like to say they worship 'freedom', they're awfully quick to condemn the practice of freedom when it comes to 'culture', rock music, violent video games, etc.

I'll condemn a lot of the rap mousic morally, but putting a law in place to censor it is another matter. Making guns less available to wanna be kid gangsters, that can help.

 

[smackababy]

This seems pretty confused ot me on a number of points.

Most people can name OJ Simpson, Adolf Hitler, Pol Pot, Jim Jones, Charles Manson. So?

The Boston Bombers got a lot of press, too. So?

There are sometimes copycat criminals. That's not generally enough reason to ban media coverage of them.

That's happened once that comes to mind, sort of - Germany's restrictions on the use of te swastika or Nazi symbols. And I can understand that. But that's a one-off.

'Our culture is the problem, not guns' - that's pretty nonsensical.

First, with our culture but without guns, how many of these shootings would there be? Oh, not so many? So just maybe guns actually play a role?

Second, do you have any solution to the 'culture' issue? Can you change the 'culture' so that there is never a Charles Manson or a Columbine or a Newtown? No, you can't.

So you just want to wave your finger and chant 'culture' and obstruct any policies that might actually reduce the violence.

Makes no sense.

For peope who like to say they worship 'freedom', they're awfully quick to condemn the practice of freedom when it comes to 'culture', rock music, violent video games, etc.

I'll condemn a lot of the rap mousic morally, but putting a law in place to censor it is another matter. Making guns less available to wanna be kid gangsters, that can help.

The problem is we are not going to eliminate guns or the availability of them. With the number of guns currently in the civilian population estimated just short of 1 gun for every person in the US (That is around 350 million), control on new guns is highly unlikely to stop real gun violence. What it might stop is the white, suburban school shootings that get plastered in the media, but that makes up for a very small amount of the number of people killed per year.

If we change the culture (and I am not talking about censoring rap music or any real government intervention), but a real culture change, we have a chance to actually curb violence. Canada has millions of guns, but they don't have nearly the violence we have in America. Why is that? Are Canadians just more docile? America worships violence. Our entire culture is built upon it. Our media pumps it out, we eat it up, and we get people who think of violence to solve their problems.

How do we solve this and change? That is a good question, and one I don't have the answer to. I do, however, know that quite a bit of the insane gun control laws wanting to be pushed, will do very little to stop the actual problem and will cost a lot more than they should.

*EDIT: I will say, I don't condemn any art for it's depictions. Rap music is filled with violent story telling, but that is what it is: story telling. The problem is people's inability to separate the fact that Lil Wayne doesn't sell $100 million dollars in cocaine a year and doesn't kill anyone. He just understands the image required to sell records. Same with rock music and Bruce Willis movies. They are not real life depictions and shouldn't be viewed as such. But, our culture idolizes people that do live that life.