Florida teen charged in string of cat killings

ASPCA4EVER

Well-Known Member
Joined
Apr 9, 2009
Messages
2,555
Location
Land of the JAYHAWKS-ROCK CHOCK Jayhawk, KU
By SARAH LARIMER Associated Press Writer The Associated Press
Monday, June 15, 2009 3:47 AM EDT
In this Sunday, June 14, 2009 police mug photo released by the Miami-Dade
<< I edited the mug shot out>>

A bond hearing for 18-year-old Tyler Hayes Weinman is scheduled Monday afternoon. He was charged Sunday with 19 counts each of animal cruelty and improperly disposing of an animal body.

In the past month, residents in two Miami neighborhoods found more than two dozen dead cats. Police say some had been skinned, and it appears a sharp, straight instrument was used in some cases.

Authorities said they had been watching Weinman for some time.

Weinman's attorney has said that his client is innocent.

An arrest report shows Weinman was was arrested last month for marijuana possession and driving with a suspended license.
http://www.mediacomtoday.com/news/r...news.ap.org>&ps=1011&_LT=HOME_LARSDCCL3_UNEWS

*********************************
This article caught my eye...and this question has been eating at me all day, so I thought that I would bring this to all of you for your input!!!

The article had a statement from a young neighbor who was close to the same age: "well, if Tyler isn't guilty of this horrible crime, this posting of his face and name will surely ruin his life"!!!

Should newspapers be allowed to do this {posting names & faces of the accused}...it reminds me of the young man who's life was totally trashed after the FBI went after him for the Olympic Park Bombing and he was innocent of all those charges too! While I hate that the cats have been horribly mutilated and this young man seems to have had 'SOME' trouble in the past...is he just the easy target?
 
Werbung:
MIAMI - During a court appearance Monday afternoon, 18-year-old Tyler Hayes Weinman, the man accused of killing and mutilating 19 cats, was slapped with a $249,500 bail by a Florida judge, who also said he must undergo a psychiatric evaluation and wear a monitoring device if he is released.

One article refers to Tyler as a 'TEEN' now this one is calling him a 'MAN'...WOW!
 
The media has the right to publish pictures of accused, along with whatever else it deems newsworthy. It is all outlined in the first amendment of the Constitution.

Along with that right comes a responsibility. If the accused does turn out to be innocent, and if the pictures have a negative effect on him/her, then the newspaper is liable.

Were I so accused, and my picture splashed all over the papers as a sadistic cat killer, I would go and find the meanest pit bull of a lawyer I could and go after the SOBs.

If this kid is innocent, I hope he does the same.

If he is guilty, I hope he gets the counseling he needs. Going around killing and skinning cats is just sick. He needs to be taken off of the streets, and his problems addressed, before he graduates to little kids.
 
The media has the right to publish pictures of accused, along with whatever else it deems newsworthy. It is all outlined in the first amendment of the Constitution.

Along with that right comes a responsibility. If the accused does turn out to be innocent, and if the pictures have a negative effect on him/her, then the newspaper is liable.

Were I so accused, and my picture splashed all over the papers as a sadistic cat killer, I would go and find the meanest pit bull of a lawyer I could and go after the SOBs.

If this kid is innocent, I hope he does the same.

If he is guilty, I hope he gets the counseling he needs. Going around killing and skinning cats is just sick. He needs to be taken off of the streets, and his problems addressed, before he graduates to little kids.

FREEDOM OF EXPRESSION--SPEECH AND PRESS


Adoption and the Common Law Background

Madison's version of the speech and press clauses, introduced in the House of Representatives on June 8, 1789, provided: ''The people shall not be deprived or abridged of their right to speak, to write, or to publish their sentiments; and the freedom of the press, as one of the great bulwarks of liberty, shall be inviolable.''1 The special committee rewrote the language to some extent, adding other provisions from Madison's draft, to make it read: ''The freedom of speech and of the press, and the right of the people peaceably to assemble and consult for their common good, and to apply to the Government for redress of grievances, shall not be infringed.''2 In this form it went to the Senate, which rewrote it to read: ''That Congress shall make no law abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press, or the right of the people peaceably to assemble and consult for their common good, and to petition the government for a redress of grievances.''3 Subsequently, the religion clauses and these clauses were combined by the Senate.4 The final language was agreed upon in conference.

What does the 1st Amendment have to do with 'splashing one's picture' on the front page of the local newspaper? This just seems like the Catch 22 of our 'RIGHT TO KNOW'! IMO

Then the whole premise of: 'not guilty until proven guilty by a jury of our peers' seems ironic? Many a life gets drug through the muck/mire while the 'accused' is awaiting trial for his day in court. Seems to me our 'Freedom Of Speech' and how it relates to the 'newspapers' resembles the torrid / slime papers of the 'National Enquirer' but not as seedy...LOL
 
What does the 1st Amendment have to do with 'splashing one's picture' on the front page of the local newspaper? This just seems like the Catch 22 of our 'RIGHT TO KNOW'! IMO

Then the whole premise of: 'not guilty until proven guilty by a jury of our peers' seems ironic? Many a life gets drug through the muck/mire while the 'accused' is awaiting trial for his day in court. Seems to me our 'Freedom Of Speech' and how it relates to the 'newspapers' resembles the torrid / slime papers of the 'National Enquirer' but not as seedy...LOL

The Bill of Rights, unlike most of what has come out of Washington, is very simple and straightforward. The first Amendment reads as follows:

Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the government for a redress of grievances.

Congress can not pass laws abridging the freedom of speech, pure and simple. The newspaper has the freedom to say what it wants, including publishing pictures. Of course, the individual also has rights, and among those rights is the right to sue in a court of law.

Is it legal to shout "fire" in a crowded theater? Sure, it's legal. Of course, the shouter is then responsible for any damages that might result from the ensuing panic.
 
The Bill of Rights, unlike most of what has come out of Washington, is very simple and straightforward. The first Amendment reads as follows:



Congress can not pass laws abridging the freedom of speech, pure and simple. The newspaper has the freedom to say what it wants, including publishing pictures. Of course, the individual also has rights, and among those rights is the right to sue in a court of law.

Is it legal to shout "fire" in a crowded theater? Sure, it's legal. Of course, the shouter is then responsible for any damages that might result from the ensuing panic.


Great reply!
 
There is one problem with this logic. The newspaper can plead bankruptcy. go out of business, reorganize, and come back again, under slightly different ownership. Homebuilding companies do it all the time. The kid cannot.
 
There is one problem with this logic. The newspaper can plead bankruptcy. go out of business, reorganize, and come back again, under slightly different ownership. Homebuilding companies do it all the time. The kid cannot.

Then change the laws that a business once bankrupt can not turn around and come back under another name. But we can not and should not change the constitution.
 
There is one problem with this logic. The newspaper can plead bankruptcy. go out of business, reorganize, and come back again, under slightly different ownership. Homebuilding companies do it all the time. The kid cannot.
I quite agree with you Sam!

Then in lies the problem of 'INTERPRETATION' of the 1st Amendement.

Logically speaking {god how I love that phrase}, the forefathers trashed each other on a regular basis/threw mud/slandered each other in all regards while using the local press {and yes, a few of our founding fathers even ran the newspapers so that they could print what 'truths' they chose to} but if my 'selective memory is correct' it was about their individual 'freedoms of speech' and a political issue that they were 'passionate about'...not some poor 'JOHN Q. PUBLIC' down the street that got caught {or someone one accused} of killing the neighborhood cats!

See there is a difference between 'freedom of press' and printing an article about a 'possible/maybe' accusation!
 
Werbung:
18 is a teen, and it is a man. so they are both correct.

Grammatically correct...possible...but a 'MAN'...not hardly! It would appear that the paper has issues with the style of the crime...{and I'm an avid animal protector too} but it would appear as though there is some 'biased' reporting going on here {SHOCK}!
 
Back
Top