General Discussion
Related: Editorials & Other Articles, Issue Forums, Alliance Forums, Region ForumsPandemonium as media mob ransacks shooters’ home on live TV without FBI permission
http://www.rawstory.com/2015/12/pandemonium-as-media-mob-ransack-shooters-home-on-live-tv-without-fbi-permission/The couples landlord said reporters and photographers from BBC, CNN, MSNBC and NBC rushed into the apartment Friday when he pried open the front door and they live-tweeted broadcast their findings on live television.
Investigators said they did not authorize the tours, which could have contaminated the crime scene if it has not been cleared....
Viewers and social media users and even some media colleagues were almost uniformly critical of the networks decision to enter the apartment without apparently clearing the move with investigators.
cwydro
(51,308 posts)The FBI guy, Bowdich, said that the FBI had released the scene and it had nothing to do with them.
KittyWampus
(55,894 posts)yellowcanine
(35,699 posts)It is a violation of the privacy of the family. Just because the couple were criminals and are dead doesn't mean it is open season on their home. The landlord and the news agencies just opened themselves up to a violation of privacy lawsuit which could be filed on behalf of the baby girl and other relatives.
That grand the landlord got won't go far in lawyer fees. He better hope he's got good insurance with high limits. Oh and, get ready to sell his investment, because no insurance company will underwrite him after that.
suffragette
(12,232 posts)librechik
(30,674 posts)If true, it's another FBI investigative f-up worthy of 9-11 or the JFK assassination.
yeah, I re-checked the tape-- FBI says they are only interested in the garage, so even though there were ids and fingerprints and other stuff, ok to look elsewhere in the house.
WTF???
nadinbrzezinski
(154,021 posts)so they had no control.
WTF indeed on the part of Raw Story
yellowcanine
(35,699 posts)This is basic landlord/tenant law. Even if the parents are dead, the child has privacy rights which the landlord just violated. Big time. Not to mention other surviving family members. If the family gets a good lawyer, they basically own this guy - and a piece of the news media who violated the rights of this family as well if they made public any pictures etc. of the child or other family members.
nadinbrzezinski
(154,021 posts)and that is a CIVIL LOCAL MATTER. So once again, blaming the FBI is the wrong people to blame.
yellowcanine
(35,699 posts)And I hope the family sues the crap out of the landlord and the news media organizations.
nadinbrzezinski
(154,021 posts)yellowcanine
(35,699 posts)I am not sure they would even claim that.
nadinbrzezinski
(154,021 posts)but that is besides the point
For the record all media organizations do make mistakes. The difference is that most media outlets will correct them as soon as noticed. I am not above that. I have made them, and some are real bad goofs.
But I am commenting on the story, not the law surrounding entry to the apartment. By the way, as bad as it might sound to you, once the media was legally allowed into private property, they might be in the clear legally... was it ethical? I am sure there should be some discussion on this. My view, it was not ethical, and all that should have been done if anything, is note the rooms and what they could see, without showing it. Sadly, this may turn to be an international story.
Is the owner of the property liable in CIVIL COURT? Possible. That will be for a lawyer and a judge to decide.
As is LEGALLY once again, the status of the child is NOT CLEAR either. If they left a will that states how the child should be disposed off the COURT still will have to get involved. So we really do not know YET who will get legal custody of the kid.
yellowcanine
(35,699 posts)Which cannot be waived by a landlord. At minimum, the landlord should have gotten some kind of agreement as to how those rights were going to be protected before allowing crews in there. Maybe he did and the media violated it. Whatever, my prediction is that some lawyers are definitely going to have a field day with this one.
nadinbrzezinski
(154,021 posts)there will be a lawyer (or lawyers) involved fairly soon. That I will conceded, no problem.
But once the courts pick this apart, given how private property and media interact... though if the media was not swift and did not get the agreement recorded, in some form, they might be in a tad more hot water. He said, she said... and all that.
To be honest, one of the stations (where liability might come from) offered 1000 buckaroos for access. You are the owner, you are not getting the cleaning deposit, and you are assuming the place was trashed by the cops, how will a 1000 bucks sound to you to fix the place up before you try to rent it again? I am sure the owner had no clue as to the POTENTIAL can of worms he just opened.
And many landlords and renters have like zero clue as to precisely what are their rights either.
And yes, there is an ethical component to this that I am positive will be ahem discussed, or should be, at journalism classes. Just because legally you can do something, does not mean you should. I am just questioning how much liability will be in place for CNN, and MSNBC and the local affiliates.
Matariki
(18,775 posts)oh wait... they didn't. His failure to be Muslim didn't interest them that much.