become yesterday's news in order to push Isis....incredibly moronic, too bad a majority of citizens so faithfully play follow the leader

more folks should kill their TV.

Some people think the scene was deliberately allowed to be contaminated.

Who paid the landlord to allow this to happen? Someone did.

to the owner.

So it was no longer a crime scene.

As to who paid... one of the news crews offered 1000 bucks... neither MSNBC or CNN... apparently one of the locals. It was bizarre and I have been in news scrums as well.

Last edited Fri Dec 4, 2015, 11:30 PM - Edit history (1)

WTF is going on. It didn't occur to any one that what they were doing was not within the purview of what a journalist does.

And it occurred to no one at the respective networks to inform those out-of-control clowns that they were over-stepping their bounds and to get the hell out of there.

A-fucking-amazing.

into private property. The owner opened a can of liability whoop ass on himself though.

Journalist can enter private property if they are invited in. They were, by the property owner, who was offered 1000 buckaroos by one of the news crews (now that can get shady, not necessarily illegal), There are some complications such as renter rights, and grand ma has some even if not in the lease since she has been living on the property, but it falls more in the category, just because you can (legally) does not mean you should. Ethics 101.

Invitation or not. They were searching through drawers and closets, showing a driver's license of a family member on the air.

That property owner and those networks are going to shelling out big bucks from the suit that's sure to come.

but the owner is, or should be, in hot water... for several reasons,

And this... well, the stations committed a few ethics violations. As I said, just becuase you can, does not mean you should.

Also the tape I saw, they went through things that were left out in the open, which is the law enforcement standard.

They were left in the open as part of the FBI procedure with the list of things that were taken.

If you break into my house and snoop in my sock drawer, I can't sue you for violating my rights protected by the fourth amendment (unless you happen to be an organ of the state.)

You could be arrested for various criminal statutes such as breaking and entering, but '4th amendment violation' ain't one of them. Depending on your state, and your state's laws surrounding landlords and rentals, you might or might not have a case of invasion of privacy. In some states, landlords can do a hell of a lot without tenants having much remedy.

We'll leave it up to the lawyers and the courts but I'm pretty sure airing the driver's license with the name and photo of a family member has the potential to endanger that person's safety with the anti-Muslim hysteria out there now.

Somebody is going to have to pay for that press riot.

If you come over to my house and start spewing religious twaddle, I can (and likely will) ask you to leave. Doing so does not violate your first amendment right to free speech or exercise of religion.

Similarly, this being DU and not a government website, the owners can choose what speech they allow.

The bill of rights is a restriction on the government, 'congress shall pass no law...' etc.

sadly most tenants and landlords have no clue. A lot of this in theory has to be put in the contract, and since grandmother lived on the property she had the rights of a tenant... even though she is not in the lease.

We have been covering a lot of our local slum lords... so I have been reading a lot of CALIFORNIA law, which is relevant here.

http://www.dca.ca.gov/publications/landlordbook/catenant.pdf

I think grandma has a case... and that the landlord opened a whoopass can of liability for himself.

As to the media... they broke all kinds of ethics... and some might take them to court, but if they have it recorded where the landlord invited them in. they mostly will be off the hook.

Though I have seen some contracts that make you go WTF over? One was in Spanish and had only the rent, when it was due, and the military clause allowing the landlord to cancel the lease anytime he wanted.

The contract was stinky to be honest. Housing advocates did get involved though.

Neither the property owner nor the networks, which are private citizens, have a constitutional obligation to anybody - Con Law 101. However, it was a ridiculous thing to do, probably a violation of journalistic ethics (assuming they have any anymore) and there might be some state law civil actions available to the remaining tenant (the grandmother).

guess it's no more fucked up than donald trump, the 'reality' celebrity, probably becoming the gop nominee

sensationalism and propaganda. No land in sight.

Wonder if that is the new standard now? Might be entertaining when they rush a drug cartels stronghold. The reporters can run along side the ATF and ask them if they are raiding a known drug dealers house! I guess people are getting tired of COPS! and Lockup!

Crazy shit. So what dirt did they dig up on the baby?

So they can all be investigated HEAVILY as accessories to the murders. That should give them pause next time, at least.

Fingerprints are on file with Police as part of the Journalist accreditation in many places. So they should be really easy to match if CSI's computers are anything like as efficient as the real ones.

Landlord let reporters in there. Reporters, therefore, did absolutely nothing illegal.

They are the criminals that deserve public shaming. Seems to me to be an element of that.

They got a warrant to search this house because it's not the crime scene. It was a place of residence where LE hoped to find lots of evidence they could take. No one, however, has to come behind them and measure blood splatters, determine if body placement concurs with the evidence, and so on.

And, no, I don't believe the journalists should have gone through the house, since I think the occupant has rights.

Sensationalistic, is that a word?

Shameless opportunistic, .... How is this described?