Media is Taking ME to Court Tomorrow!!!

page: 1
16
<<   2  3  4 >>

log in

join
+2 more 
posted on Jun, 11 2013 @ 10:19 PM
link   
Fifteen months ago a young lady who attended the same 7th grade classes as my son was kidnapped. Fortunately, in a happy ending, a few days later she was found and returned unharmed to her family.

The day immediately following her abduction, there was considerable media attention centering around the school campus where she and my son attend. A local news station was asked by the principal not to film the students, but as the final bell rang and all the kids began heading home the reporter and his camera man quickly set up, started taking footage, and even initiated an interview with a mother who was all too anxious to be on TV.

Meanwhile, many other parents were appalled and concerned about the intrusion. Could this unwanted attention somehow create more danger? The camera was recording children’s faces, the cars they got into, if they began walking home, who walked together, who walked alone, and more. Thank God I don’t think like a predator, but wouldn’t this be almost a Christmas present for someone who does?

Short story is this. I personally asked the camera crew and reporter to not film, and definitely not my son. After being told I had no rights and they could do whatever they wanted, they shoved the camera literally only a few inches from my face and wanted to know what I was going to do about it. I was exceptionally uncomfortable with the invasion of my personal space and the absolute disregard for the children's safety so with no aggression whatsoever I pointed the camera away.

Tomorrow morning I have to go to court and explain why I shouldn’t have to pay over $700 in fines for assault.

Anyone who has read my posts knows how protective and concerned I am (like many others) regarding my family. Studying the internet, I have found confusing and conflicting end results regarding the rights of an individual vs. the rights of the media. I’m not asking for advice, just curious to see if anyone has seen this type of incident before and what happened. I will say that since I can’t afford an attorney, I certainly can’t afford to pay such a large fine for what I consider defending my son’s privacy and safety, so I may not get to post again until they let me out.

I do want to admit there are many ways I could have handled the situation differently but even now I can’t say I could have simply walked away then still been able to look myself in the mirror and believe I cared for my kids as much as I claim to.

Chew me out if I deserve it, but has anyone seen similar events and remember the outcome?




posted on Jun, 11 2013 @ 10:29 PM
link   
reply to post by samstone11
 


Tell them exactly what you posted here. Your concern was for the children's safety .


Good luck, sorry you gotta deal with such crap.



posted on Jun, 11 2013 @ 10:32 PM
link   
reply to post by samstone11
 


The way I see it, you violated their rights, they did not violate yours.
It sounds as if you initiated the confrontation also.
Do I believe the news should be filming kids, hell no.
But I do not see any laws being broken here.
Did the news blur the faces of the children?



posted on Jun, 11 2013 @ 10:35 PM
link   
In for a penny, in for a pound. There are times when it's simply worth it. People seem to think that they can disrespect and provoke anyone they like because they can hide behind the law. Every so often the right thing happens, hope it works out the way it should for you.

Since there is video footage of exactly what happened available, if you're story is accurate, maybe asking for that to be introduced as evidence would be possible and helpful to your case.



posted on Jun, 11 2013 @ 10:36 PM
link   
You didn't assault any person.
You turned a camera away from your child.
You didn't break it did you?
There is no injury therefore there is no crime.



posted on Jun, 11 2013 @ 10:50 PM
link   

Originally posted by samstone11

Chew me out if I deserve it, but has anyone seen similar events and remember the outcome?


You do deserve it.

You are promoting fascist ideology in the USA without even realizing it.

Public = I can film anywhere anyone I want.
Private = Your property where I cannot legally film without permission.

This is how our society is suppose to work. We have two realms of existence, public and private.

If a predator wanted to see kids, he could go act like a parent and sit in the parking lot to pick them up watching them all come out and profiling them for his target. Predators don't sit around and wait for the news to finally hook them up with footage in some random surprise case. They act on their impulses in very irrational and foolish ways and don't wait around very long to do so.

A nation where filming in public is heavily restricted, is China.
Would you rather live in China or here where we still have a few freedoms left to enjoy?

You asked to be chewed out so there you go.



posted on Jun, 11 2013 @ 10:50 PM
link   
I'm not an expert lawyer,but I'm certain Pushing the camera (Not the person) does NOT qualify as Assault.
(That's vandalism,and if you can get this logic to apply their case will either be thrown out or the charge will change.

Another thing is the Crew were (From what you told here,and in your last thread.) TRESPASSING. The Principal is a state official,whom authority resides in and (most cases) AROUND the school grounds. They did not follow what this official said,The Media has NO right to trespass. The Media has no right to harass you.
Filming someone SPECIFICALLY and told they have no consent is ILLEGAL.
Doing it simply without consent,or on a group is legal.


To dust on the harassment ,YOU asked them not to film you or YOUR child,Whom YOU are responsible for. You have the right to have them not film your child. The Media or ANYONE may NOT film or photograph a person when they tell them not to. They broke that law when they continued.
www.wisegeek.org...


Simply look this up or ask for the advice of an attorney,or another law oriented person about these.

P.S.
Did they literally tell you, "You have no rights" ?

Thats another charge depending on where you live.

Keep this in mind,and study up on your my friend.

edit on 11-6-2013 by Szarekh because: (no reason given)
edit on 11-6-2013 by Szarekh because: (no reason given)
edit on 11-6-2013 by Szarekh because: This ain't 1984.



posted on Jun, 11 2013 @ 10:52 PM
link   
reply to post by g146541
 

Clearly, someone with authority also believes I violated their rights. In answer to your question, no, the children were not "blurred" or otherwise obscured onscreen. Perhaps I am just too paranoid?



posted on Jun, 11 2013 @ 10:53 PM
link   
reply to post by samstone11
 


Just explain to the judge what you explained here. Prepare it tonight and write it down, short and to the point, but detailed. My job requires me to deal with legal issues often (insurance fraud) and judges don't want to hear you ramble on and on and prefer a short, detailed, prepared statement. As long as you didn't break the camera or injure anyone the worst they could charge you with is simple battery (unwanted touching of another person or their property while in their possession).

That said, glad it wasn't me because I would've been in jail for destroying that camera and punching the cameraman's nose in. You don't mess with my kids, I become dangerous.



posted on Jun, 11 2013 @ 10:58 PM
link   
reply to post by samstone11
 


You should call a competing news channel in your area and tell them the story. I agree with you, I don't want news agencies hanging around and filming my children when school is dismissed.



posted on Jun, 11 2013 @ 11:04 PM
link   
reply to post by muzzleflash
 


The Authority over the public area said they may not film. A principal usually has authority over the children in and around school premises. (Usually,and i can clarify if you'd like)
The Person whom Privacy was invaded said they may not film.
~~
Public = I can film anywhere anyone I want. -NO
Private = Your property where I cannot legally film without permission. -Almost.
~~

Public=I can film anywhere and anyone within the confines of the law,and safety of everyone.
Private= I can film anywhere that has been allowed for the crew ,and anyone whom has given consent.

Please do not take me as being snooty or confrontational,but your wrong.



posted on Jun, 11 2013 @ 11:04 PM
link   

Originally posted by samstone11

Tomorrow morning I have to go to court and explain why I shouldn’t have to pay over $700 in fines for assault.

Anyone who has read my posts knows how protective and concerned I am (like many others) regarding my family.


I don't think you protect your family very well.

You obviously signed your name onto a Joint Custody Document with the Govt??? You willingly allowed them to be legal co-parents with you? That's what a school registration form is, a legal joint-custody document.

How can you claim to be protective of your family when you literally signed custody of them over to the Govt for so many hours a day 5 days a week?? You probably don't know these people personally they are strangers.

Sending your kid off to that corrupted putrid institution is the opposite of protecting, it's endangering them.
edit on 11-6-2013 by muzzleflash because: (no reason given)



posted on Jun, 11 2013 @ 11:08 PM
link   

Originally posted by Szarekh
reply to post by muzzleflash
 


The Authority over the public area said they may not film. A principal usually has authority over the children in and around school premises. (Usually,and i can clarify if you'd like)
The Person whom Privacy was invaded said they may not film.
~~
Public = I can film anywhere anyone I want. -NO
Private = Your property where I cannot legally film without permission. -Almost.
~~

Public=I can film anywhere and anyone within the confines of the law,and safety of everyone.
Private= I can film anywhere that has been allowed for the crew ,and anyone whom has given consent.

Please do not take me as being snooty or confrontational,but your wrong.


Incorrect. A school principal has no grounds to tell people on the sidewalk or street what they can or cannot film.

This is the USA, not China.



posted on Jun, 11 2013 @ 11:08 PM
link   
It's already come up a couple of times, so I need to add that I was frustrated, but in control. By no means did I harm the camera man or his equipment and I was very, very careful even in anger to not become overtly abusive.

Still, I am prepared to accept critiques and admit I also am no law student. I am sincerely curious as to other people's opinions and input.



posted on Jun, 11 2013 @ 11:16 PM
link   

Originally posted by samstone11
It's already come up a couple of times, so I need to add that I was frustrated, but in control. By no means did I harm the camera man or his equipment and I was very, very careful even in anger to not become overtly abusive.

Still, I am prepared to accept critiques and admit I also am no law student. I am sincerely curious as to other people's opinions and input.


If you touched their camera you technically broke the law.

You have no right to touch other people's property without their permission (or without legitimate legal grounds like, they left their stuff on your property and legally removed it etc).

If they put a camera in your face in public and do not like it, turn around, walk the other way.

Becoming confrontational was the primary mistake you made here. Journalists deal with unruly people all the time who try to impede their legal work, and those cameras are very expensive these days. You simply didn't have any right to even touch it.
edit on 11-6-2013 by muzzleflash because: (no reason given)



posted on Jun, 11 2013 @ 11:18 PM
link   
Right or wrong, most likely you will leave having pled guilty to a lesser charge. You will not leave the courthouse without some kind of monetary slap. Good luck, keep us posted!



posted on Jun, 11 2013 @ 11:19 PM
link   

Originally posted by samstone11


Still, I am prepared to accept critiques and admit I also am no law student. I am sincerely curious as to other people's opinions and input.


Ok I will help you get out of this now that you know how bad you screwed up.

First thing:
File a MOTION TO DISMISS the case.

You must File Motions BEFORE the CASE BEGINS!!!!
This is your only chance, do it quickly or you will probably have to pay it no matter what.



posted on Jun, 11 2013 @ 11:20 PM
link   

Originally posted by Asktheanimals
There is no injury therefore there is no crime.


Assault is defined as Having Offensive Contact.

So you merely have to just touch someone WithOut their permission and that would be defined as assault. No Injury is Required.



posted on Jun, 11 2013 @ 11:20 PM
link   
first of all, legally the news has to have permission from either the principal, who represents the parents in this case, or the individual parents to air the film of minors. I see kids blurred out often in films. Secoond, the news reporter has no more rights than you, using Ad Hominum tactics and a lawsuit is a way to try to push authority. I would file a very big lawsuit against the reporter and his company myself to show him that two can play the same game. a hundred grand would be a nice start, the broadcast company would probably settle out of court for a lesser amount..
edit on 11-6-2013 by rickymouse because: (no reason given)



posted on Jun, 11 2013 @ 11:20 PM
link   
reply to post by muzzleflash
 

I have to say you confuse me somewhat. You and I had near exact opinions on another thread regarding another matter over the last two days, and I want you to know I respect your knowledge base tremendously. I am interested in understanding more about signing a legal document assigning co-parenting status to the school. I have heard of such legalistic issues peripherally, but am not aware of any instances where there was a positive outcome. This concerns me also. I agree that turning my son over to strangers has a degree of risk, but there is also the proverbial risk in the simple act of walking across the street. I'm not saying I disagree with you, just requesting a bit of clarification.

Is there a socially acceptable resolution where all parties win?





new topics

top topics



 
16
<<   2  3  4 >>

log in

join