Constitutional Rights

[Unit505]

I have to rant, but also stir up some awareness. This could be a gun rights case or any other case, but this morning, I'm watching Fox News following a case of Violation Of Privacy and the comment was made that "one of the accused plead the 5th. What is he hiding?".

Another case - "The accused is not cooperating with police and is seeking legal representation".

Both of these comments made by the Fox News Anchor. Ladies and Gentlemen, we are innocent until proven guilty by a jury of our peers, not by the police or Fox News. I have many friends in law enforcement and I love Fox News, but neither have the right to make such comments and in my opinion, they place a cloud of blame over the accused and create a defamation of character. Even the most evil American Citizen has rights. I've read many articles on "Police Cooperation". You cannot legally be accused of not cooperating with police because you've asked for an attorney. You also cannot be legally accused of hiding something if you plead the 5th amendment. These rights go right along with the 2nd Amendment. You cannot legally be accused of being a criminal because you chose to bear arms (in most cases). We fight to keep our right to bear arms and we need to fight to keep all of our Constitutional Guarantees.

In short, this post is not a statement against the police or the courts, but regardless of the circumstances, we must not judge or place a cloud of speculation against our fellow citizens because they choose to exercise their constitutional rights and should we do so, I think myself or anyone else should be held liable for doing so as we are hurting that person's chance to a fair and impartial trial. A coworker tells me that my gripes go against the 1st Amendment because the News Anchors have the right to Freedom of Speech. I disagree. We have no right to accuse another of hiding something for using the 5th or being called uncooperative for hiring an attorney.

[GunLawyer001]

A TV news show is not a court of law. News anchors don't have to presume innocence, and they are free to assume that someone who states that " I decline to answer because it may tend to incriminate me" might have done something that would tend to be incriminating.

Just because a judge would instruct a jury to ignore something, or it would be excluded from being mentioned at trial, doesn't mean that the rest of the world has to play by those rules. When a child goes missing and the parent lawyers up before calling the cops, most people find that significant. On the other hand, after a defensive shooting, it's reasonable for the shooter to decline to speak without counsel.

Reality matters.

[Unit505]

So if the Police Spokesman tells the reporter that the home owner has not commented and is seeking council, it's perfectly acceptable for the reporter to say that I am not cooperating with authorities? There are circumstances where I agree with reality - a blood covered home intruder with a finger hanging out of his mouth...... of course. But at the same time, someone accused of a computer crime and the cops say that the suspect is not willing to talk at this time and is seeking legal council, gives no right to say that he is not cooperating. This is my beef with the comments. If you call me uncooperative, you have made a comment about me that you may not be able to prove and should be held liable. Can I suffer from your comment? Let's say the charges are dropped next week and my next source of employment watched my case on the news and saw that I am an uncooperative person.........

I just feel that when Fox News calls itself - Fair and Balanced, they need to support Constitutional Rights and not make false or uninformed comments, especially when dealing with a constitutional matter.

[GunLawyer001]

So if the Police Spokesman tells the reporter that the home owner has not commented and is seeking council, it's perfectly acceptable for the reporter to say that I am not cooperating with authorities? There are circumstances where I agree with reality - a blood covered home intruder with a finger hanging out of his mouth...... of course. But at the same time, someone accused of a computer crime and the cops say that the suspect is not willing to talk at this time and is seeking legal council, gives no right to say that he is not cooperating. This is my beef with the comments. If you call me uncooperative, you have made a comment about me that you may not be able to prove and should be held liable. Can I suffer from your comment? Let's say the charges are dropped next week and my next source of employment watched my case on the news and saw that I am an uncooperative person.........

I just feel that when Fox News calls itself - Fair and Balanced, they need to support Constitutional Rights and not make false or uninformed comments, especially when dealing with a constitutional matter.

I have no idea what you're trying to say, because the terms that I've highlighted in red don't mean anything in the current context.

"Acceptable" to whom, under what system of rules? Isn't the 1st Amendment part of the Constitution? That's where the "right to say" things is protected.

As for being held "liable", for what? Slander? What false and defamatory statement do you see? If a suspect declines to cooperate, then he's uncooperative. Or do you see a 3rd choice?

[Unit505]

I am trying to say that a person should not be called uncooperative when they elect to call upon their attorney. How is it uncooperative if I elect to speak with my attorney before I make any statements to the police?

Freedom of speech is where I tell someone that I think they are an A-Hole. Not telling the public that I am uncooperative. Being an A-Hole is my opinion. Being uncooperative is a statement about ones behavior.

[billamj]

I am trying to say that a person should not be called uncooperative when they elect to call upon their attorney. How is it uncooperative if I elect to speak with my attorney before I make any statements to the police?

Freedom of speech is where I tell someone that I think they are an A-Hole. Not telling the public that I am uncooperative. Being an A-Hole is my opinion. Being uncooperative is a statement about ones behavior.

The press can infer what they will. They've been doing it for years and there is nothing that Joe or Jane Average can do about it.

[gnbrotz]

I am trying to say that a person should not be called uncooperative when they elect to call upon their attorney. How is it uncooperative if I elect to speak with my attorney before I make any statements to the police?

Freedom of speech is where I tell someone that I think they are an A-Hole. Not telling the public that I am uncooperative. Being an A-Hole is my opinion. Being uncooperative is a statement about ones behavior.

Adj. 1. uncooperative
uncooperative - unwilling to cooperate; "an uncooperative witness"
unhelpful - providing no assistance

Seems like a fair characterization to me. It doesn't mean you're actively hindering the investigation, merely that you're not helping the police build their case against you. To me, that's a good thing, though I realize that the majority of society probably doesn't view it that way.

[Coops]

I am trying to say that a person should not be called uncooperative when they elect to call upon their attorney. How is it uncooperative if I elect to speak with my attorney before I make any statements to the police?

Freedom of speech is where I tell someone that I think they are an A-Hole. Not telling the public that I am uncooperative. Being an A-Hole is my opinion. Being uncooperative is a statement about ones behavior.

Until you actually do cooperate you are by definition uncooperative. Unlike Schrodinger's cat, you cannot be both at the same time.

Your perceived level of cooperation is certainly a matter of opinion.
Some might reserve judgment until you actually speak (or not), some might infer you are hiding something. Since your behavior has not changed from one observer to the next, their reaction is their opinion of the situation.

[tlgpa]

I am trying to say that a person should not be called uncooperative when they elect to call upon their attorney. How is it uncooperative if I elect to speak with my attorney before I make any statements to the police?

co·op·er·a·tive –adjective
1.working or acting together willingly for a common purpose or benefit.
2.demonstrating a willingness to cooperate: The librarian was cooperative in helping us find the book.

By not working with the police, you are uncooperative. It is your Constitutional Right to be uncooperative.

Freedom of speech is where I tell someone that I think they are an A-Hole. Not telling the public that I am uncooperative. Being an A-Hole is my opinion. Being uncooperative is a statement about ones behavior.

Freedom of speech is just that, freedom to speak what you wish. And it works for everyone. Since uncooperative is an adjective, and you weren't cooperating, I'd say it's a fair assesment of your behavior.

[Unit505]

I got you guys, I just feel like the way the media portrays you as uncooperative, sheds a negative light and could therefore hurt the reputation of an innocent individual resulting in damages being suffered by that individual. I was under the impression that this injuring of reputation could be considered defamation.

def·a·ma·tion   [def-uh-mey-shuhn] Show IPA
–noun
the act of defaming; false or unjustified injury of the good reputation of another, as by slander or libel; calumny: She sued the magazine for defamation of character.