It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

Investigative Journalist Attacked on Camera

page: 1
7
<<   2 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Sep, 6 2006 @ 11:57 AM
link   
John Mattes was investigating a real estate scam involving stolen identities when he was confronted on camera today by the subjects of his investigation, Sam and Rosa Suleiman. Violent words were followed by violent actions, all caught on tape as the camera rolled. Warning: profanity and violence on this video link.
 



video.fox6.com
Investigative journalist John Mattes is an attorney and reporter known for his tenacity in tracking down cases of deception and consumer fraud. It was one such story John was working on today when he was viciously attacked by a man who had been making threats for weeks. The attacker is Sam Suleiman and his wife Rosa.



Please visit the link provided for the complete story.


This is an example of some of the worst in human behavior. Not only are these people the subjects of a scam investigation, but they go on to physically assault the reporter doing the investigation, on camera.

Their behavior doesn't do much to convince me of their innocence. You can add assault charges to whatever scam they were involved in.

Related News Links:
www.fox6.com

[edit on 6-9-2006 by Icarus Rising]




posted on Sep, 7 2006 @ 09:22 PM
link   
I just watched the video of this on another website. The journalist ends up with the left side of his face being bloodied and then the cops step in a little later to arrest the scammers. The journalist took a heck of a beating right from the start by that man.



posted on Sep, 7 2006 @ 09:33 PM
link   
It is a good thing this scumbag is behind bars. But honestly, I feel the Journalist should have done a little more to defend himself. He should not have let his gaurd down or turned hi back to a known confrontational man like that. You should never turn your back on an incoming opponent regardless.

Hopefully they will get a rematch, and we will also be blessed with the footage afterwards.
j/k man calm down. Of course I would not mind seeing a rematch though.



posted on Sep, 7 2006 @ 09:39 PM
link   
I saw this on TV. The reporter was lucky he had someone there to help defend him, because he did nothing to help himself. Of course, with such good video evidence, a grand jury will have no trouble returning an indictment with a stupidity enhancements.

[edit on 2006/9/7 by GradyPhilpott]



posted on Sep, 7 2006 @ 09:40 PM
link   
I thought it was horrendous...but since WHEN are journalists prosecutors ?

Is this the new trend now? Journalist/prosecutors wannabe's??

I am not siding with the people being investigated, but come on....A journalist does not have the legal right to go after these people....
More Dog the Bounty Hunter wannabes?

Let the law handle criminals.



posted on Sep, 7 2006 @ 09:43 PM
link   
I agree to the extent that "investigative reporters" get just a little too aggressive for my tastes. In general, I'm not too fond of journalists, anyway. It's good to see one get his behind kicked, but you really should catch the guy without his cameraman or go for the camera first.



posted on Sep, 7 2006 @ 10:05 PM
link   
This man was completely within his rights as a citizen to go after a pure criminal and evil-doer!! It is called consumer reporting. How were any of us to be able to know what this criminal was up to without his straight-forwardness in confronting the man himself. We need more reporters like this except perhaps they need to at least throw their set when attacked and don't get punked.



posted on Sep, 7 2006 @ 10:08 PM
link   
If reporters are goint to take it upon themselves to aggresively go after people, then they shouldnt be shocked when they get their butts beaten.

What next? Guns for reporters?

Pluueeze.



posted on Sep, 7 2006 @ 10:12 PM
link   
Now I do not think we need to go that far, and frankly I think we are overreacting to the whole situation. For all we know any other reporter would have grabbed a lawn ornament and fought back. there is no need to be armed, as we can see the officer took care of that himself at the end of the video. Of course I do believe Reporters will need to take steps to learn how to defend themselves in situations like these. I would love to see more situations like this on the news.

Take the fight to the criminals before they can ruin any other citizens' lives.



posted on Sep, 7 2006 @ 10:47 PM
link   
Imo, this investigative journalist was taking 7 On Your Side and Fight Back! out into the streets in his own hands.

This Suleiman character was allegedly stealing identities and using them to buy property, then renting out the property, probably not paying the mortgage, and making off with the rental deposits and receipts while his tenants got evicted. Really an immoral lowlife scam artist.

Maybe this Mattes guy thought he was a modern day Magnum P.I. or Jim Rockford, maybe even Sam McCloud (though McCloud was a lawman). He forgot that all those guys packed heat and took some licks every now and then.

He probably did the right thing not fighting back, but he could've done a better job of protecting himself. I mean after Rosa came up, threw water all over the camera, screamed profanities in his face, and threatened to send him to the other side of the border, Ensenada or Tiajuana (his choice), he should have gotten the hint these people meant business and were out to do him harm.



posted on Sep, 7 2006 @ 10:55 PM
link   
I think those reporters are great, but you know what, it seems the story was told and the newscast had already aired, so why did he feel the need to continue further following the wife around and continually filming her even when she asked him to stop? I would hope that if someone asks a reporter to cease filming them that they should cease and desist. The reporter was well aware the man was sending him threats, it was kind of stupid to walk right into the man and harrass his wife. I believe he intentionally didn't defend himself for the purpose of sensationalism and of course possibly the right to sue the man and maybe get a piece of the ill-gotten booty he may have hidden away.



posted on Sep, 7 2006 @ 11:00 PM
link   
He won't get a nickel out of the scumbag, but he will get some satisfaction out of sending him to prison for a while.



posted on Sep, 7 2006 @ 11:03 PM
link   
The reporter was doing a follow-up on one of the illegally obtained properties, and the woman came out of nowhere. As far as I can tell he had every right being right where he was, and if he was not than he can technically be charged for tresspassing. Unfortunately Pieman, a woman throwing water in my face does not constitue a real threat. Of course as soon as I seen the man I would have been getting ready.



posted on Sep, 7 2006 @ 11:37 PM
link   
I find it interesting that many are already saying that this man and his wife are guilty, when no one has stated any such a thing as of yet. They were suspected of having been involved in a scam, but they haven't been convicted of anything yet. Why does this give some self-centered reporter the right to go play vigilante on these people? As far as I'm concerned, the SOB reporter deserved everything he got, and then some.

Let me ask you guys a question, if you were suspected of committing a crime, and were in deliberations on the case, would you like it for reporters to keep sticking mikes in your face, constantly asking you questions about your guilt? I know I wouldn't. If that kind of thing happened to me, I'd end up slamming some reporters myself. There is a law against harrassment, and reporters are not exempt from that law. They probably think they are, but they're not. If I choose to punch him because he harrassed me, rather than file harrassment charges, I think that should be allowed.

TheBorg



posted on Sep, 7 2006 @ 11:41 PM
link   
Well, they committed several acts of assault and battery on at least two individuals while being taped by a professional photographer. Regardless of whatever else they may have done and whether or not they will be convicted of other crimes, they will certainly do time for these violent attacks on the reporter and his cameraman and more than likely the interviewee, as well.



posted on Sep, 7 2006 @ 11:46 PM
link   
Well now, that depends on if she asked the cameraman to stop filming her.

Bear in mind that if someone asks another to stop harrassing them, and they continue, that's a crime. If the person being harrassed has no way to get immediate help to alleviate the situation, via police or other methods, they have to resort to the only thing they have, themselves and their own faculties. If that means whoopin the dog crap out of someone for whatever they were doing to them, then by all means, do so.

To me, it's all a matter of who started the fight. They were simply suspected of being scam artists. This warrants being harrassed all the time by cameramen? Please....

TheBorg



posted on Sep, 8 2006 @ 12:04 AM
link   
The accusations are not baseless Borg, and the man that helped out the reporter is one of this criminals victims. He has not been convicted because he has to go through the judicial system first. However, there is evidence of his crimes on paper, which of course will be used in the court of law to prove his guilt and lead to his conviction, even if bearaucracy delays that until next year. That was the whole reason the reporter was doing this investigation and bringing it to the public light so that others can be aware of the crimes and spread the word so that his cycle of deception could be halted.

Now as far as the woman goes, the cameraman was at fault because he followed the woman after she walked away. He should indeed have stayed on the reporter and their story allowed to continue. This was irrelevan to the attack of course because the man attacked the reporter even though it was the cameraman who folowed his wife when she requested for him to stop. That can indeed be considered harrassment.

they were found once or twice to get their side of the story, and then follwoed through with the requests to stop filming them. They put themselves back in the spotlight though by jumping into the report that was being done on one of the properties. Of course if they do in fact LEGALLY own that property they can press charges for tresspassing. If not legally owned then they cannot.

[edit on 9/8/2006 by DYepes]



posted on Sep, 8 2006 @ 01:03 AM
link   

Originally posted by DYepes
The accusations are not baseless Borg, and the man that helped out the reporter is one of this criminals victims.


And how is this not misconstrued as a biased argument on the part of the investigative journalist? Doesn't it seem funny to anyone but me that this reporter only listens to the "victim", and intentionally instigates confrontations with a woman that has not been convicted of any crime? The fact that that reporter has one of the supposed victims of this scam with him tells me that this journalist is denying his own objectivity in his investigation. Seems to me as though he has already decided who's guilty and who's not.



He has not been convicted because he has to go through the judicial system first.


So why continue to harrass her until the courts decide her fate? That's the job of the courts, not a citizen.



That was the whole reason the reporter was doing this investigation and bringing it to the public light so that others can be aware of the crimes and spread the word so that his cycle of deception could be halted.


This doesn't necessitate the actions taken by the reporter. Simply showing the evidence available would have been enough, which the news station had already done. It should have ended there.



Now as far as the woman goes, the cameraman was at fault because he followed the woman after she walked away.


Cameramen are directed by the reporters doing the report, so it's the fault of both of them for the actions taken. The reporter could have told the cameraman to shut it down at anytime, but he didn't. That makes it his fault as well.



This was irrelevan to the attack of course because the man attacked the reporter even though it was the cameraman who folowed his wife when she requested for him to stop. That can indeed be considered harrassment.


This would not have happened had the cameraman ceased to film when he was told to. If you watch the video, she went to her husband begging for him to stop the guys from harrassing her. He simply obliged. True, he did overdo it, but I think it was at least halfway warranted.



They put themselves back in the spotlight though by jumping into the report that was being done on one of the properties.


That's a good point I suppose. She should have stayed away from the site. However, if like you said, they own the site, then she has every right to be there, and the media does not. In which case, yet again, the beating taken was deserved.

I can't honestly see how it could be viewed any other way, simply because the media has gotten a bit too cocky when it comes to "getting the story". This is not to say that I agree with the actions of the man and woman, because I don't like the idea of fighting anymore than anyone else. Having said that though, if I feel as though I've been affronted by someone, I'm going to defend myself. That's my right within the law.

I find it most ironic that the media was out looking to bring to light the breaking of the law, and in the process, quite possibly broke the law themselves.

TheBorg



posted on Sep, 8 2006 @ 02:48 AM
link   

Originally posted by TheBorg

Let me ask you guys a question, if you were suspected of committing a crime, and were in deliberations on the case, would you like it for reporters to keep sticking mikes in your face, constantly asking you questions about your guilt? I know I wouldn't. If that kind of thing happened to me, I'd end up slamming some reporters myself. There is a law against harrassment, and reporters are not exempt from that law. They probably think they are, but they're not. If I choose to punch him because he harrassed me, rather than file harrassment charges, I think that should be allowed.

TheBorg


I would imagine that its inevitable that reporters will come around, however if you are asked to leave and as you said they are not yet proven guilty, the property they were on legally still belongs to them and they should have respected that immediately. All people accused of high profile crimes should expect some publicity but if someone asks you to stop then they should at least respect that.


Pie



posted on Sep, 8 2006 @ 03:23 AM
link   
i think it is great to put the scumbags in the open so we know who they are.



new topics

top topics



 
7
<<   2 >>

log in

join