alright forum snoops

**sup-rbeast** · April 3rd, 2008, 08:57 AM

So, according to you, if one of your relatives is even suspected of a crime, all their friends and family should suffer for that....real smooth there cane. That ain't cool.

**CoeburnCane** · April 3rd, 2008, 09:02 AM

<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: sup-rbeast</div><div class="ubbcode-body">The thought is right, but the premise is wrong. These people aren't guilty yet....they haven't been tried.</div></div>

They haven't been tried, but I've seen people that are guilty as sin get away with crimes such as these, and the only real punishment they get out of it is this printing of their names.

Remember, we perceive it as punishment, but the way the media and law enforcement looks at it--it's all public record...so it is fair game.

AND--if the people were so concerned about having a stigma on themselves or anyone they know, then why do anything to even come close to being charged with any of this? This isn't new. It's not like people are being sneak-attacked from behind and don't know what's gonna happen if they do this, and they also know that it's wrong to do--that's also no excuse. Put it on them and their actions. These people would likely NEVER be in the paper if not for what they've perpetrated. It's on them.

**imported_elp6n** · April 3rd, 2008, 09:04 AM

These busts aren't the only events where offenders have their names published. Names are published for indictments (not convictions) nearly every week (grand jury, federal grand jury, etc). Names are published when there's an interesting police action. Just this morning on the radio there was a story about a domestic violence event last night. Names were named. Actions were described. No one there has been indicted or convicted either.
But it's news.

Additionally, go to http://www.courtbar.org/caseIndex.htm and look up anyone you want. Even those not yet convicted are there for public viewing.

**sup-rbeast** · April 3rd, 2008, 09:06 AM

No, but sometimes operations like this turn into witch hunts....and unless you've ever been a victim to rumors, I guess it'd be hard for you to understand where I'm coming from. Not all of these people are guilty....some are, but not all. And IMO, if they don't have enough evidence to prosecute and gain a conviction on a person, their name shouldn't be made public record. So, that kills the argument that this is all the punishment some of the folks receive. If they are found guilty, they will be punished unless they strike a deal. And, in that case, blame the system not the perp. It's not just this episode I have a problem with elph9n, I don't like to see names for anything just based on an indictment. If it goes to trial and the person is convicted....fine. If not, it isn't right.

**sup-rbeast** · April 3rd, 2008, 09:09 AM

The thing is, if a person wanted to know who was involved, they should have to go to a place like courtbar...not hear rampant rumors based on a name being in the paper.

**CoeburnCane** · April 3rd, 2008, 09:10 AM

<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: sup-rbeast</div><div class="ubbcode-body">So, according to you, if one of your relatives is even suspected of a crime, all their friends and family should suffer for that....real smooth there cane. That ain't cool.</div></div>

If someone out of my family did something like that or was affiliated with those that were doing something like that, and he got deep enough into it to get charged, then I'd be railing on them for doing something so stupid and illegal...I'd still love them, don't get me wrong and I'd be trying my best to make sure if they didn't actually do anything that their name would be cleared--but if they did the crime, they gotta do the time--regardless of how much I love them.

If you hang with the wrong crowd and you end up deep into the trouble that they're getting into, then it's on you. It's not on me. It's not on "that darn paper for publishing their name and embarrassing us".

Plus--I try to live my life to make sure that no one can put that same type of stigma on me regardless of what a family member may do. If they wanted to transfer the mode of thought onto me that they would onto a member of my family that committed a crime, I'd point out to them that my life doesn't reflect that and that them thinking that because my cousin/aunt/brother/father's name is in the paper makes them a sheeple like 90% of the nation.

**imported_elp6n** · April 3rd, 2008, 09:10 AM

It's news. They have a right to publish it. You dont have to read it.

**centennialdawg** · April 3rd, 2008, 09:10 AM

Burrhead did his time just like I did. But there does come a time when things like this need to be printed. I think the biggest reason names were printed in the first place is to let people know that society is not going to tolerate these things any more. But I also think that part of Burrhead's argument is the inability of people in general, to forgive the offenders and move on with life. My name, nor Burrhead's name are not the only ones on this forum that have ever been printed in the fyi section of the paper, I have seen several on here for various other reasons, from things like a simple trafic ticket to things such as welfare fraud. What could happen if running that stop sign or speeding caused an accident an caused a death? What about the one who posts on here that got caught defrauding welfare? He could very well have caused the death of another by delaying the necessary aid to a truly needy person because of his crime.

Like Christ said, "Let he who is without sin cast the first stone." We are all too quick to judge one another.

**imported_elp6n** · April 3rd, 2008, 09:13 AM

Those are very good points centennialdawg. Have to agree with your post.

**CoeburnCane** · April 3rd, 2008, 09:13 AM

<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: sup-rbeast</div><div class="ubbcode-body">The thing is, if a person wanted to know who was involved, they should have to go to a place like courtbar...not hear rampant rumors based on a name being in the paper.</div></div>

If someone does something bad enough, rampant rumors are going to happen, regardless of whether it's printed in the paper or not. At least the papers print something from legal public record, and it's better information than Aunt Ellie Mae at the Beauty Shop saying that a guy that got caught with a half-pound of mary jane wasn't up on charges for that--but according to her cousin Peggy Sue that the guy is up on multiple drug/homicide charges instead. That's more damaging than the paper actually putting the facts of the charges out there.