Police lawyer threatens reporter: don't report smirking cop's corpse selfie


#1

Originally published at: http://boingboing.net/2016/11/05/police-lawyer-threatens-report.html


#2

Oh, no! The police need the photo back because the case is open. WHAT EVER WILL THEY DO WITHOUT THAT ONE PHOTO. Oh, right they probably still have the original.

No wonder they get so confused and conflate copyright infringement with theft.


#3

hmmmm… i can see it right here on my screen. maybe if they dust my phone for fingerprints, they’ll get this case solved right quick.


#4

" KMOV’s counsel referred the police to the reply given in the case of Arkell v. Pressdram."

Where did you see that? I can’t find it.

For those who missed the reference, read this:


#5

It is almost as if their should be some sort of screening process for police…there is you say? well it certainly seems to be working. \s


#6

[quote=“natehoffelder, post:4, topic:88806”]
" KMOV’s counsel referred the police to the reply given in the case of Arkell v. Pressdram."

Where did you see that? I can’t find it.
[/quote]Yeah, that was misleading and disappointing. I suspect Rob Beschizza was speaking metaphorically, his was of saying the TV station’s counsel’s response was dismissive. But I was hoping the lawyer actually did cite or emulate Arkell c Pressdram, and that doesn’t seem to be the case.


#7

It would have been awesome, yes.


#8

not literally, that’s just my summarization of their response


#9

Perhaps they could 'shoop in a custodian helmet and clown nose and call it parody?


#10
  1. I have corrected the post thusly: “KMOV’s counsel’s reply may be compared to that given in the case of Arkell v. Pressdram.”

  2. I have added you to the list.


#11

Of course you have a list, Rob. That’s definitely what mature people with a healthy sense of self do with criticism. You know, like Nixon.


#12

It’s not Rob’s list. It’s the community’s list, and it’s funny.


#13

“I have seen thousands and thousands of forensic photographs, I have never seen a staged photograph of an officer next to a deceased body,” Romanucci said.

Yeah no shit. They don’t put those into evidence.

I’m conflicted on this because on one hand it is disrespectful, but on the other hand I know people/know of people who deal with death on a regular basis (ER Doc, EMT) and their attitudes toward death and a dead body are shockingly different than a normal persons because they are around it all the time.

Given though the all the issues with the police, and that we don’t know WTF is going on in the pic, it doesn’t look good.


#14

You don’t refrain from taking these photos for the sake of the dead. You don’t do it for all the people who care about the dead. Because they were a person. Who had a life just as rich and complex as your own.

This isn’t a difference in attitude about death. It’s a disregard for the victim’s life. Certainly nothing unexpected from the cops.


#15

Lynndie England called, she wants to know why the police are copying her.


#16

Looks like her buddy Charles Graner finally lost that dorky mustache.


#17

I agree it’s tasteless and shouldn’t have been released.


#18

Would you describe your dismay, at my apparent immaturity and unhealthy sense of self, as disappointment?


#19

Being jaded and cracking jokes is one thing, disturbing a crime scene to pose with a murder victim is a very different thing.


#20

But we don’t know what is going on. It may or may not be disturbing anything, or if it is part of processing, etc.