lesopp
join:2001-06-27
Land O Lakes, FL | reply to nutcr0cker
Re: Corporate CSRs never lie From the NBC transcript:
"they recorded the conversation, let our deputies listen where he was making specific threats." |
|
 NOYBSt. John 3.16Premium
join:2005-12-15
Forest Grove, OR
kudos:1
1 edit |
So lets hear it then so we can know for ourselves what the specific threats were and the context in which the were made. Their word is not better than his.
|
|
 ThalerPremium
join:2004-02-02
Los Angeles, CA
kudos:3
 ·DSL EXTREME
| said by NOYB:So lets hear it then. Are you the police, or even a party involved in the matter? There is no obligation to make every piece of evidence downloadable in a nice, tidy pack for internet consumers to browse.
If you're indeed interested in the legal upcomings, I suggest you sit in at the court hearings. |
|
NOYBSt. John 3.16Premium
join:2005-12-15
Forest Grove, OR
kudos:1
3 edits | Yeah, selective publication for what suite them. Great. If they are not going to make it all available to the public then they should not make any of it public. So they should not even been talking to the press. It is disingenuous at best. But does serve their purpose to demonize the man publicly. If the recordings served their purpose they would make them public too. But most likely the recordings would reveal that the charges are exaggerated. |
|
ThalerPremium
join:2004-02-02
Los Angeles, CA
kudos:3 Reviews:
·DSL EXTREME
| said by NOYB:If they are not going to make it all available to the public then they should not make any of it public. I suggest you take your grievance of such to the media that was reporting the story. They're the ones that determine if a story is "newsworthy" and publishable, not the police. |
|
NOYBSt. John 3.16Premium
join:2005-12-15
Forest Grove, OR
kudos:1 | The media does not control the ISP talking to them or releasing the recording. |
|
ThalerPremium
join:2004-02-02
Los Angeles, CA
kudos:3 Reviews:
·DSL EXTREME
| said by NOYB:The media does not control the ISP talking to them or releasing the recording. No, but in the case of criminal actions, you better damn well believe the ISP is going to relinquish those records to the police - especially if they're the one receiving death threats. |
|
| reply to NOYB
said by NOYB:The media does not control the ISP talking to them or releasing the recording. And if the ISP released the tape and not the police, then they are fully justified to counter arguments such as you posted that the CSR lied. |
|
NOYBSt. John 3.16Premium
join:2005-12-15
Forest Grove, OR
kudos:1
3 edits | reply to Thaler
Of course. But that is not the point. The point is, if the ISP is going to go public with the press then they should also provide the recordings to the press and make them available to the public. How about a little full discloser, instead of only disclosing what suites them.
Put it all out there for everyone to see & hear. Let us make up our own mind instead of telling us what we should think and believe. |
|
NOYBSt. John 3.16Premium
join:2005-12-15
Forest Grove, OR
kudos:1
1 edit | reply to fAcEtIOUs
I have never said the CSR lied. Though in absence of the evidence I certainly do not rule it out. Nor do I rule out the charges are exaggerated. And for sure side with the accused until it is proven. |
|
ThalerPremium
join:2004-02-02
Los Angeles, CA
kudos:3 Reviews:
·DSL EXTREME
| reply to NOYB
said by NOYB:The point is, if the ISP is going to go public with the press then they should also provide the recordings to the press and make them available to the public. The ISP went to law enforcement, not the public. The reporting media is what brought you this newsbit you're reading today.
said by NOYB:How about a little full discloser, instead of only disclosing what suites them. Because they don't feel they need to fully disclose everything on an ongoing criminal investigation. Right now, the recordings are where they should be - in the hands of authorities. It is their call now wether or not releasing the recordings will help/hinder the impending trial.
Nothing is being withheld though. You have a right to sit in on the court procedings. Undoubtably, they'll be playing these recordings during trial. If you're so inclined, you can hear them then. |
|
NOYBSt. John 3.16Premium
join:2005-12-15
Forest Grove, OR
kudos:1
1 edit | The ISP has been interviewed and cooperated with the press. They owe us the rest of the story. |
|
ThalerPremium
join:2004-02-02
Los Angeles, CA
kudos:3 Reviews:
·DSL EXTREME
| reply to NOYB
said by NOYB:Though in absence of the evidence I certainly do not rule it out. Nor do I rule out the charges are exaggerated. And for sure side with the accused until it is proven. This is why we have our courts system. The evidence will be reviewed and charges will be appropriately filed then. |
|
 brandonSome truth included in this post.Premium
join:2003-03-31
Hurley, MS | reply to NOYB
said by NOYB:Of course. But that is not the point. The point is, if the ISP is going to go public with the press then they should also provide the recordings to the press and make them available to the public. How about a little full discloser, instead of only disclosing what suites them. Put it all out there for everyone to see & hear. Let us make up our own mind instead of telling us what we should think and believe. Name one court case EVER where the public has had privy to ALL evidence in the case without actually showing up for the hearing. |
|
ThalerPremium
join:2004-02-02
Los Angeles, CA
kudos:3 Reviews:
·DSL EXTREME
| reply to NOYB
said by NOYB:The ISP has been interviewed and cooperated with the press. They owe us the rest of the story. The only people the ISP owes anything to, is law enforcement, the defendant, and any other parties directly involved with the court hearing. Everything else is selective disclosure, which is very much advisable when talking about an ongoing criminal investigation. |
|
ThalerPremium
join:2004-02-02
Los Angeles, CA
kudos:3 Reviews:
·DSL EXTREME
1 edit | reply to brandon
said by brandon:Name one court case EVER where the public has had privy to ALL evidence in the case without actually showing up for the hearing. Didn't OJ's case(s) have a lot of evidence leaking? Or were those leaks not authorized? (ie. at a press conference)
Court procedings have always been made public and filed on public record - nothing is withheld. All evidence/witnesses are shown/heard when the time is right in court. |
|
|
|
brandonSome truth included in this post.Premium
join:2003-03-31
Hurley, MS | said by Thaler:said by brandon:Name one court case EVER where the public has had privy to ALL evidence in the case without actually showing up for the hearing. Didn't OJ's case(s) have a lot of evidence leaking? Court procedings have always been made public and filed on public record - nothing is withheld. All evidence/witnesses are shown/heard when the time is right in court. Excuse me. Pre-court is what I meant. |
|
 rec9140Provoice just DO it
join:2003-07-29
Mulberry, FL | reply to NOYB
said by NOYB:
I have never said the CSR lied. Though in absence of the evidence I certainly do not rule it out. Nor do I rule out the charges are exaggerated. And for sure side with the accused until it is proven.
Just wait. This is Floriduh.... and with its Sunshine Law.... it will eventually end up in the medias hands. May not be till it goes to court... but it will..
The medsleasia in Tampa just couldn't wait to air footage from a corporate security camera on a train v. vehicle accident where all the occupants were S7 and involved 2 teens and a early twenty something. I fail to see the newsworthyness of this footage, that just by luck of position of the camera and the location of the S4 it was caught.
BUT.....if it bleeds it leads.... 
--
Lorem ipsum ei pro stet equidem labores, at enim animal expetenda nec. Ea vix argumentum dissentiunt, usu esse ridens ex. |
|
 dMarksMelting Faces For FunPremium
join:2007-02-09
Jackson, MI
 ·Comcast
| reply to NOYB
said by NOYB:The ISP has been interviewed and cooperated with the press. They owe us the rest of the story. We're not owed anything.
Fact is, this case may go to trial by jury. The court will need to select jurors. How will the jury, whom are to be impartial and make unbiased decisions, supposed to do their job if they hear and see all evidence before the case is even started?
There is a reason why evidence isn't *supposed* to be made public before the trial is started. This guy may very well be guilty of the crime, but how is he supposed to have a fair trial by jury (if it is done that way) if he goes in with everyone against him to begin with? The justice system in America isn't perfect, but even criminals have a right to a fair trial.
--
HN7000S G16 - 970 MHz (currently)|Pro Plan|Windows XP Pro SP2|AMD Athlon 64 FX-57|2GB Dual Channel RAM|2x GeForce 7950 GT 512MB|250GB HDD |
|
| reply to Thaler
Maybe because not everybody has the time or desire to travel across the country to sit in on what will most likely be multiple court proceedings across a possible time span of months or even years. |
|
