Separate names with a comma.
Discussion in 'In the News' started by Gunstar1, Aug 30, 2006.
http://www.ledger-enquirer.com/mld/ledg ... 384398.htm
Well, since he was charged, it must have been unjustified, right?
The journalist who wrote that story ought to be fired.
There are not enough facts to draw a conclusion in any direction.
Fired? I thought it was a well-written article. I especially like the inclusion of the actual text of the statute at the end. The article clearly stated that the allegations are just that-- unproven allegations at this time.
The only thing I would have included, had I written the article, would be a summary of what the defendant said (if anything) to the police regarding what prompted him to reach for a gun. I'd like to know this guy's side of the story. But maybe he exercised his right to remain silent, leaving the cops with only one side of the story (the side that makes him look guilty) to document and only one possible outcome (an arrest, based on the uncontradicted testimony of the accuser).
Of course it's possible that the police report did contain summaries of both the accuser's story and the defendant's own version of the incident, but the media chose not to go into that level of detail for fear of possibly tainting potential jurors in this case... YEAH RIGHT !!!
Well, the story should have indicated the lack of information, then, rather than just leaving us wondering while filling the article with innuendo about the judge pulling a gun over a traffic altercation (maybe the altercation included the "two guys" coming after him with a crowbar) and a comment made to the commission years previously.
I, too, like the inclusion of the statute, but I would still fire him.
I think the answer to the problem is in the story. The police wrote an initial report that was scant. The supplemental report has the good stuff in it. Only initial reports are public. Nobody's talking about the details.
And we all thought that Harvard study was bogus....