News
Welcome to the News community!
Rules:
1. Be civil
Attack the argument, not the person. No racism/sexism/bigotry. Good faith argumentation only. This includes accusing another user of being a bot or paid actor. Trolling is uncivil and is grounds for removal and/or a community ban. Do not respond to rule-breaking content; report it and move on.
2. All posts should contain a source (url) that is as reliable and unbiased as possible and must only contain one link.
Obvious right or left wing sources will be removed at the mods discretion. We have an actively updated blocklist, which you can see here: https://lemmy.world/post/2246130 if you feel like any website is missing, contact the mods. Supporting links can be added in comments or posted seperately but not to the post body.
3. No bots, spam or self-promotion.
Only approved bots, which follow the guidelines for bots set by the instance, are allowed.
4. Post titles should be the same as the article used as source.
Posts which titles don’t match the source won’t be removed, but the autoMod will notify you, and if your title misrepresents the original article, the post will be deleted. If the site changed their headline, the bot might still contact you, just ignore it, we won’t delete your post.
5. Only recent news is allowed.
Posts must be news from the most recent 30 days.
6. All posts must be news articles.
No opinion pieces, Listicles, editorials or celebrity gossip is allowed. All posts will be judged on a case-by-case basis.
7. No duplicate posts.
If a source you used was already posted by someone else, the autoMod will leave a message. Please remove your post if the autoMod is correct. If the post that matches your post is very old, we refer you to rule 5.
8. Misinformation is prohibited.
Misinformation / propaganda is strictly prohibited. Any comment or post containing or linking to misinformation will be removed. If you feel that your post has been removed in error, credible sources must be provided.
9. No link shorteners.
The auto mod will contact you if a link shortener is detected, please delete your post if they are right.
10. Don't copy entire article in your post body
For copyright reasons, you are not allowed to copy an entire article into your post body. This is an instance wide rule, that is strictly enforced in this community.
view the rest of the comments
And here we go again. I never said there was, so stop the straw man bullshit.
Yeah well, I didn't know what you were trying to say.
Okay, a nexus issue, that's something, still not a misrepresentation, it's a scope and nexus issue. I have to think about that one and maybe another look at the warrants. That's on the judge, as your quote says, it "essentially threw Judge Viar under the bus."
That's just splitting hairs.
Never mind the "may have"; he actually did misrepresent the facts:
The police chief claimed the reporter (Phyllis Zorn) could only obtain the driver's record by impersonating the "victim" or lying about the reasons the record was being sought.
Zorn said an unidentified source gave her a copy of the driver's record, which she then verified on a state public records database. This directly contradicts the police chief's accusations.
The newspaper said it didn't run the story because they felt their source's motives were questionable. Then after the raid, they did because it was relevant to the raid.
According to the newspaper's attorney, Bernie Rhodes:
Source
The chief still didn't write the affidavit.
According to the newspaper's attorney, who of course says it was legal! Nobody is more biased on this question. Good try though.
I read the stature and there are 14 reasons that can allow someone to look up public driving records. The journalist didn't meet any of them.
They are listed here in subsection b items 1 to 14. Which one do you think the paper fell under?
It's the same list that I have to check off as an attorney when I use a public record databases such as LexisNexis. Here they are:
https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/18/2721
If you read carefully, the newspaper's argument is that the law intends to make driving records records publicly available, so the paper was allowed to access the records.
That's true if they are released to the paper under FOIA. These records contained personal information on private individuals, so they were not foiable, and were publicly available only if one of the 14 rights of access from that federal statute applies. And indeed there was no FOIA request. So, the journalist either impersonated the subject of the record, or falsely certified to one of the rights of access enumerated in the statute.
You keep moving the goalposts. First it's a misrepresentation made the warrant invalid, then it's that the warrant was too broad, now it's that the conduct alleged in the warrant is true but was not actually criminal. Hmm.
Bullshit.
The judge allowed the warrant based on the information she got from the police chief, which is questionable and will have to be sorted out in court, period.
And this memo he issued for "interested media outlets" outlines the how and why.
If you're an attorney and feel so strongly about this, perhaps you can represent the (now former) police chief, pro bono.
Once again, the police chief did not write the warrant affidavit. The judge didn't do anything based the police chief. The officer that applied for the warrant did though, he referred the chief to internal affairs after the driving record somehow implicated him in a crime. If he committed a crime, charge him.
The memo doesn't explain any reasoning or recite any facts. It merely quotes some statutes and then highlights some language. Each time, it conveniently stops the highlighting right before the list of reasons why many driving records are not public record except for cause, defined under the statute. The reporter still doesn't meet any of the valid rights of access.
For example, the lawyer highlighted the right of access that applies to statistical research. The reporter was not doing statistical research, so why is it highlighted? Seems the only reason is to try and confuse people.
The lawyer is saying that because many driving records are disclosable for cause, all of them are. Or, that because the statute's purpose is to make certain driving records public, the reporter was free to submit false information to obtain the records. They are shit arguments.
I remain unconvinced.
Nah, I don't represent cops or scabs.
As I said before, if you think the judge and police chief are in the right here, fine; you have a right to your opinion.
Unless you're the judge in the upcoming cases, who cares?
Edit: About the next comment -- straw man my ass. I restated, word for word, exactly what I had stated eight posts above.
Also, more recent audio from body camera footage shows the police chief was searching for information about himself during the raid, which may have been his motivation for the raid in the first place.
Now whose putting up a straw man?