• If you are having problems logging in please use the Contact Us in the lower right hand corner of the forum page for assistance.

Endangering Officer Wilson?

Mike

Well-known member
The New York Times, whether consciously or not, has just endangered Darren Wilson’s life.

With tensions running high in Ferguson over the lack of an indictment for Wilson’s killing of Michael Brown, the paper has published the officer’s approximate address -- the street and town where he lives with his new wife, who also is named.

Given the racial animosity unleashed by Brown’s death, given the rioting and the looting and the stores that were set afire, how can a news organization make it easier for some crazy zealot to track down Wilson?

But there it is in the paper:

“Officer Wilson and [blank] own a home together on [blank] Lane in [blank], Mo., a St. Louis suburb about a half-hour drive from Ferguson.”

I mean, why not add a locator map?

The piece was a seemingly innocuous scooplet about Wilson, who had dropped out of sight before the grand jury decision, getting married.

As Mediaite columnist Joe Concha puts it, “Regardless of your thoughts on Wilson’s guilt or innocence, how can anyone believe providing his street and name of his wife be anything but irresponsible?”

The Times has published a correction -- but not the kind you would expect:

“An earlier version of this post included a photograph that contained information that should not have been made public. The image has been removed.”

But that was not a reference to Wilson’s address, which was in the text of the story. Rather, the paper deleted a photo of Wilson’s marriage license.

Journalism is full of close calls. This is not one of them. The Times should apologize.
 

Larrry

Well-known member
http://rightwingnews.com/media/two-new-york-times-reporters-posted-darren-wilsons-home-address-look-see-home-addresses/

Two New York Times Reporters Posted Darren Wilson’s Home Address. Look Here To See THEIR Home Addresses.
John Hawkins
26 Nov, 2014 by John Hawkins


Since the Grand Jury verdict in Ferguson, there have been riots, looting, assaults, guns fired and cars and businesses burned to the ground. Meanwhile, all the criminals and thugs doing this are baying for policeman Darren Wilson’s blood because they don’t like the fact he had his day in court and evidence wasn’t strong enough to bring the case to trial. So, in this violent environment, when the life of Darren Wilson and his new wife are in danger, the New York Times is attempting to impose the death penalty on him via newspaper by publishing his home address.



It was a disgusting, despicable, immoral act and the two reporters responsible, Julie Bosman and Campbell Robertson, deserve to lose their careers over what they did. Of course, this is the New York Times, so they’re unlikely to pay any sort of penalty. Still, I thought they deserved to pay a price.
 

loomixguy

Well-known member
Remember the fits the Fatman would pitch about "anonymous" posters? He imagined he should know everybody's proper name, address, and telephone number so he could check them out and dig dirt on them.

He was in such a lather to get WW that his failure to do so with Bucki really bit him in the ample arse. He should have vetted his Messiah a little better before he voted for him, too. But his hatred for Bush was too great.
 

kolanuraven

Well-known member
Ofc Wilson needs to get some facial surgery, change his name, and get the hell outta the US.

If the Gov't wants to spend some money, they need to support him in his move away from all the danger he faces for doing his job.

He'll be a hunted man for the rest of his life
 

loomixguy

Well-known member
He NEEDS a damn medal.

Maybe Valley county is looking for a deputy sheriff? With all the anarchists, Aryan Nations, KKK'rs, white supremicists, and hatemongers that we've been lead to believe are up there, he should be perfectly safe. :wink:
 

Larrry

Well-known member
kolanuraven said:
Ofc Wilson needs to get some facial surgery, change his name, and get the hell outta the US.

If the Gov't wants to spend some money, they need to support him in his move away from all the danger he faces for doing his job.

He'll be a hunted man for the rest of his life

Kind of sad since the man was doing his job and doing it right. There are many leaders(so called leaders) that could have controlled the flames but only added fuel to the fire. They used so many of the protestors they should be ashamed
 

Mike

Well-known member
Maybe he can get a Border Patrol job. The Meskins coming across the Rio Grande won't know who he is. :wink:

Or maybe he can team up with George Zimmerman and start a "Personal Protection" bodyguard business. Who'd mess with their clients?

But then they both might make very good "Old Time Cowboy Sheriff's". :wink:
 

Whitewing

Well-known member
Mike said:
The New York Times, whether consciously or not, has just endangered Darren Wilson’s life.

With tensions running high in Ferguson over the lack of an indictment for Wilson’s killing of Michael Brown, the paper has published the officer’s approximate address -- the street and town where he lives with his new wife, who also is named.

Given the racial animosity unleashed by Brown’s death, given the rioting and the looting and the stores that were set afire, how can a news organization make it easier for some crazy zealot to track down Wilson?

But there it is in the paper:

“Officer Wilson and [blank] own a home together on [blank] Lane in [blank], Mo., a St. Louis suburb about a half-hour drive from Ferguson.”

I mean, why not add a locator map?

The piece was a seemingly innocuous scooplet about Wilson, who had dropped out of sight before the grand jury decision, getting married.

As Mediaite columnist Joe Concha puts it, “Regardless of your thoughts on Wilson’s guilt or innocence, how can anyone believe providing his street and name of his wife be anything but irresponsible?”

The Times has published a correction -- but not the kind you would expect:

“An earlier version of this post included a photograph that contained information that should not have been made public. The image has been removed.”

But that was not a reference to Wilson’s address, which was in the text of the story. Rather, the paper deleted a photo of Wilson’s marriage license.

Journalism is full of close calls. This is not one of them. The Times should apologize.

The NYTimes equivalent of a packet.
 
Top