Crusader for Justice Dies of Apparent Suicide

(This Thread is NOT Satire...)

Just saw this obituary of a true hero I've never heard of, but deserves to be remembered...



More at: http://www.nytimes.com/2009/11/01/us/01shellem.html?hpw

who "unrecommended" this before it was up long enough to even read the article...

I could care less what you think of me (which could be the only reason for the obviously 'knee-jerk unrecommended' every one of my posts gets -- including the one that got more than a +160), but I find it incredibly disrespectful of this man who is responsible for freeing at least five wrongfully convicted people...

And who are too cowardly to state their names in the thread.

about the wisdom of the "unrec' option, but this makes me think...

Let's face it, Freepers could block something they don't want seen from being prominently displayed on this site by using the 'unrec' option... I'm not saying "get rid of it" but I do think people should have to post a comment in order to use it... (and if, in fairness, 'recommenders' should have to as well, so be it.) Comments can be brief, but if the cloak of anonymity is removed, I believe they'll be more honest...

I wonder if EarlG could set it up so that any unrec automaticly posts as a reply for the person doing it.

on a regular basis they can be checked on to see if they are Freepers.

People have lots of reason to UnRec a thread and it is presumptuous to believe it is always because they are freepers.

the point is that some stuff makes the greatest page "for the stupidest of reasons" in my (and many others, I'm sure) opinion; unrec is just saying "I don't think this belongs on the Greatest page". It doesn't mean it's a terrible post or anything like that.

BUT I think it might be good to allow only users with some posting history to be able to unrec. That way freepers couldn't just set up a bunch of accounts and do what you are saying. At least make it so they have to build a post count first.

JMHO. I did rec this post btw.

I found out that there was no way to change that except to post a "mea culpa" lol

Cat In Seattle

I've often forgotten to "Rec" a thread I was very interested in and posting on !!

:)

:banghead:

MH1. No one is obligated to read or participate in ANY thread regardless of whether it's on the Greatest Page or not.

UNrec sucks for many reasons, the most prominent being anonymous dissent.

so that others who would be interested in it have less likelihood of

seeing it --

there are a lot of "knee-jerk" recommends that go on here. My use of unrec is usually for those cases.

It's a vote, simple as that. If 100 people vote something as "super" and 10 vote as "junk", then it ends up with 90 votes. But the people who thought it sucked (or just wasn't great enough to rise above the other posts), at least got a vote.

If you make every unrec require a rationale, then every rec should require a rationale as well. (But doesn't that sound stupid?)

Only if I am very busy at the moment do I rec and then "kick" so I see it
later to go back to --

Why not just say that you think it's "junk" or "sucked" ???

Or not for the "greatest" page? Simple enough, isn't it?

Meanwhile, yes, a thread which for one reason or another hits when people are

involved with something else -- a weekend, a holiday, perhaps/? will sink because

there aren't enough people around and the "unrec" can make a large difference when

it's a matter of 4-5 votes. And I've seen this happen.

If I notice it, I will "kick" the thread --

For you, it seems to be annoyance with the "Greatest Page" --

For me, it's a matter of a thread landing in a spot where it gets noticed --

or gets ignored.

Would you still sing it's praises if it was proved that there are those who unrec EVERY minority post they come across?

And, given the absence of proof (I don't know how those of us who have no access to the records could really prove it), you don't think that actually happens?

Only not responding to a thread will do that. Every time somebody responds to a thread that will kick the thread up in it's forum. Besides after 24 hours Rec/UnRec doesn't do anything, but kicking a thread does make it more seen.

I really don't see what is the problem here.

To argue against what it is you don't like about the thread?

That at any point in time, two dozen freepers could control all the discussions on this board.

When a post gets many inital "un recs" then the post no longer appears on the General Discussion page. So as it is, without any further controls, there exists a huge vulnerability to our discussions. Discussions could be disappeared within 90 seconds of being posted.

Many of the right wing monsters have books that sell a million copies. But when you look at the bookstore records, often hundreds and even thousands of the books will be ordered by one entity - some facet of Freeperville. So to think that DU is not vulnerable also...

we accidently do something.

I suppose that is a foreign concept.

It will release the demons from hell: "...grow the fuck up and get the fuck over it..." And other absolutely crazy-fun characters.

So why are you concerned that some asshole unrecommended it?

It's an opinion forum for chrissakes. If somebody doesn't like what's in a post, respond to it and say so. I agree that the "unrecommend " feature sucks, but Skinner apparently likes it, so the best way to deal with it is to fucking ignore it. It's a good thread and the dead man was an honorable person whose death is sad regardless of how it occurred. I would never have known about it if you hadn't posted this. So don't worry about one piece of shit who unrrecommended it.

Hmmmmmm......

Same with homelessness................

:)

when you apparently blindly 'unrecommended', post a comment as to why -- anyone can be an 'anonymous asshole' -- show us why you're not, or go away...

to state their reasons---if, indeed, they have any. Anonymous unrecs are like bombs that arive in the mail: there's usually no way to effectively respond to them and they are always initiated by cowards.

Moles or trolls? Gotta be one or the other.

you have been "wrongly convicted" of unrecomendations?

I agree with you but my experience has been that no one like that learns from confrontation.

And I keep doing it anyway.

and I hardly EVER give recs (lazy lurker :P ) so you can rest assured that I really DID do anti-troll duty on a thread that I otherwise would have only read. :)

do you mean you were offsetting an unrec?

I love how folks want everything to be a one option poll. "Do you agree? Choice 1: YES!!!!"

I think that the option to rec/unrec should require you to post in a thread. I don't like bands of disruptors showing up to mass-unrec every thread they see while being too cowardly to post in the thread they are unreccing. It allows for stealth trolls. It lets freepers in without them outing themselves for their pizza.

Normally I only lurk, and I seldom rec. However sometimes I will rec if I feel a thread is infested by stealth unrec trolls.

I'm not sure I would make too much of it in this circumstance,
the rec and unrec are next to each other, and mistakes can happen.
especially for new posters.

Why, i remember scouring my screen in vain for the "kick"
button. Where was it? Was it just for a secret elite, or something?
(just kidding around).

Thanks for the post.

160 unrecs???? how did you manage that?

Ignore the 'morans'. :hi:

Pointing out UnRecs only brings the attention that many who do UnRec desire. It's like feeding the trolls, but some still do it.

recommend these posts, where they would have forgotten about the "recommend", otherwise.

If you can't state your disapproval with whatever your opinion is, unfront, then the idea is such a travesty. It's anonymous hate mail. Why waste our time with it? Whose interest can it possibly serve?

Where we have the freedom to wrongly convict people without the bleeding heart do-gooders butting in to pervert our justice system!



Rec, by the way.

.
.
.


Live with it

or change your user-name to something inert

Or

don't initiate a thread that isn't satire

"doh"

:freak:

Perhaps a confirmation screen for an unrec would be nice.

There, you got your 160...

peace

Respect?

They don't know from no stinkin' respect.

Thanks for mentioning that.. I rec'd to cancel out one of the disrespectful ones.

That is a great loss to all those wrongfully convicted that he will never find freedom for.

:kick:

I wonder if the weight of the work Mr. Shellem was doing took too much of a toll on him.

RIP

who have 'unrecommended' this thread, which may result in fewer people learning of the great work done by the deceased man who is the topic, please have either the decency or the courage (or both) to state their objections??

Most of my work is satire, and I really don't care what naysayers think... this however, is not, and disrespecting this man who has done more good than most of us could ever hope to accomplish deserves better.

His name was Peter Shellem -- if you've got a problem with him or what he did, what's yours?

This is really sad. I wonder why the police won't say it was suicide, but his son seems to believe it was?

This story does show that there are many heroes we never hear or know about. He will be a great loss to the wrongfully convicted.

R.I.P. Peter Shellem ~ :cry:

tomorrow I'll have more to say -- not in my usual format, but a serious appreciation for all the anonymous heroes, like this man, who tilt at windmills... and win.

Apparently he was a very respected journalist among those who did know of his work. Not so popular with some in law enforcement though the article says.

Barry Scheck, co-director of the Innocence Project at the Benjamin N. Cardozo School of Law at Yeshiva University in New York, called him “a rare, one-man journalism innocence project.”

“He got into the nitty-gritty details of cases, and when he began to believe that somebody was wrongfully convicted he wouldn’t stop until he got justice,” Mr. Scheck said Monday. “Justice from the Fourth Estate has always been a great safety valve of our legal system, and Pete Shellem was that safety valve in Pennsylvania.”

In a profile in 2007, American Journalism Review wrote of Mr. Shellem, “No one keeps records on such things, but experts on journalism and the wrongly convicted cannot think of a present-day reporter who by himself has compiled a résumé of freed prisoners as thick as Shellem’s.”

This kind of investigative journalist is so rare now. What a different country it would be if people like him were the norm. It must take a toll on the few there are, to carry such a heavy burden without support from your colleagues. He's not the first of his kind to end up dead, supposedly from suicide ~

Some of these "suicidings" . . . . ain't.

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=364x2983854#2985169

Usually when anyone who has ever accomplished anything at all dies of suicide, it is really because he was murdered by some huge conspiracy. Some, based on your title, probably automatically assumed that to be the case.

Just a theory, mind you, but one that probably makes sense.

And nope, I wasn't one of them. I'm gonna rec it right now in fact.

eg, do uncover information that implicates the powerful in corruption and criminal activities, are often smeared and marginalized by the powerful, and abandoned by their colleagues who are unwilling or too afraid to support their efforts.

In this case, eg, the article states that this journalist was attacked and smeared by law enforcement when he was working on the case of the wrongfully convicted mentally challenged teenager.

Such treatment, especially by their colleagues over time could cause them to feel isolated and depressed. It would be only human to feel that way.

As far as making assumptions and reacting based on that, rather than reading the OP first, it's not a very good excuse for condemning something. The reasonable thing to do is to read first and then react.

:boring: :boring: :boring: :boring: :boring: :boring: :boring: :boring: :boring: :boring: :boring: :boring: :boring: :boring: :boring: :boring: :boring: :boring: :boring: :boring: :boring: :boring:

And btw, your very presence in the thread belies your pretense of boredom. Just fyi. The normal reaction to something that is boring, is to simply pass it by.

I fell asleep due to your mind numbingly irrelevant reply...

myself a genius but if that's your opinion, I'll accept it.

Shhhh, don't touch the keyboard! Resist the urge to respond to my 'irrelevant' post and go back to sleep.

Irony lives! :rofl:

it after I opened it. Not that it wouldn't have been a good topic for a satirical thread, since being a "crusader for justice" has got to be pretty discouraging these days.

Sounds like the guy did a lot of good. Too bad he let the down side of life get to him. :(

In regards to the unrec crap, why let it bother you? Who cares? I really don't understand why folks get so upset about that. I read threads based on their interest to ME, not on recs. I stay on the latest page mostly, with occasional trips to GD, GDP, and the greatest to see if I missed anything. It's not a contest is it?

how you could interepret the thread title as satirical.

Furthermore, you appear to have discarded any doubt that he might have been murdered, even though the police, many of who, apparently, would have a vested interested in his demise, have not yet accepted it as a suicide, despite the family's current stance.

And yes, it often is a contest. Is that so opaque to you? "Recommends" are important for bringing threads perceived to be of particular importance, front and centre. Is that a little clearer now?

The thread title is just a news report, but the poster's name (ThisThreadIsSatire) is likely to confuse some readers, not least since TTIS does post a lot of satire.

thread should be more about the posters' usernames, than about the news adumbrated in the title? That's even more strange.

You are over-analyzing, and assuming that everyone else reads the front page in the same manner you do. They don't.

that because a poster called himself/herself "ThisThreadIsSatire", their posts were always liable, never mind, likely, to be satirical; mistaking a username for the article appended to it. I think it's you who are, not so much being over-analytical as revisionist via extraordinary contortions.

perceived of particular importance" are often perceived as such only in the mind of the poster.

but I don't remember reading any of this guy's articles. I recall reading about some wrongful-conviction cases when I was in high school, but I don't recall that byline.

I'm definitely sad for the loss.

I don't know what the % of people in this country who are not treated or inadequately treated for mental illness is but it is high. Otherwise people who do jobs, like coroners and homicide detectives would all kill themselves.

I think this man's work should be celebrated though and I hope a lot more continue to do this. I loathe the death penalty and the unfairness of our judicial system that all too often is moved along, (like so many other things) by money.

Thank you for posting this sad report. The world lost a true hero with his death.

k&r

my heart goes out to his family and friends.

peace~

A loss to society that he is gone...
An inspiration because he was here.

Like "Don't Feed the Trolls", it's the same thing. This thread already has over 180 Recs and nobody has any idea of exactly how many UnRecs it has received so why give the UnRecs so much attention? Ignore them!!