• We are now running on a new, and hopefully much-improved, server. In addition we are also on new forum software. Any move entails a lot of technical details and I suspect we will encounter a few issues as the new server goes live. Please be patient with us. It will be worth it! :) Please help by posting all issues here.
  • The forum will be down for about an hour this weekend for maintenance. I apologize for the inconvenience.
  • If you are having trouble seeing the forum then you may need to clear your browser's DNS cache. Click here for instructions on how to do that
  • Please review the Forum Rules frequently as we are constantly trying to improve the forum for our members and visitors.

The Legality of Revealing a Shooting or Crime Victim's Home Address

since9

Campaign Veteran
Joined
Jan 14, 2010
Messages
6,964
Location
Colorado Springs, Colorado, USA
This morning's news carried headlines which skirted the edge of the law. While the television news agency did not reveal the specific address where the crimes and home defense shooting occurred, is as prohibited in many states, they did show video taken from across the street, and that video obviously and intentionally included the green street signs of the nearest intersection.

Two-thirds of all Americans know how to find that intersection on the Internet in about 15 seconds flat. Based on that information, a third of Americans know how to find the specific address of the house in less than a minute.

Ergo, by including the intersection, they provided all the information a bad guy out for vengeance needs in order to wreak havoc on the homeowner who was lawfully defending his or her domicile against armed criminals.

What do you think? Do you think it ought to be against the law for a news agency to reveal -- directly or indirectly -- the location of honest, law-abiding citizens who exercise their Second Amendment Rights defending life, limb, and property?

Is this legal in your state? Should it be?

Here's a sanitized screen shot of the news clip:

KTRK-Houston-Showing-Address-of-Shooting-and-Crime-Victims-sanitized-2.jpg
 

Ghost1958

Regular Member
Joined
Nov 5, 2015
Messages
1,265
Location
Kentucky
Don't see any harm.
If the bad guy has buddies those buddies in all likelihood already knew he where he was going to hit. So that isn't an issue.

JMO I don't see it as an issue one way or the other.
 

solus

Regular Member
Joined
Aug 22, 2013
Messages
9,315
Location
here nc
This morning's news carried headlines which skirted the edge of the law. While the television news agency did not reveal the specific address where the crimes and home defense shooting occurred, is as prohibited in many states, they did show video taken from across the street, and that video obviously and intentionally included the green street signs of the nearest intersection.

Two-thirds of all Americans know how to find that intersection on the Internet in about 15 seconds flat. Based on that information, a third of Americans know how to find the specific address of the house in less than a minute.

Ergo, by including the intersection, they provided all the information a bad guy out for vengeance needs in order to wreak havoc on the homeowner who was lawfully defending his or her domicile against armed criminals.

What do you think? Do you think it ought to be against the law for a news agency to reveal -- directly or indirectly -- the location of honest, law-abiding citizens who exercise their Second Amendment Rights defending life, limb, and property?

Is this legal in your state? Should it be?

snipppp...[not furthering your malfeasance]

Since9 i am thoroughly confused...
first, you state the newspeek group ‘...skirted the law...’
second, you then you state ‘...as prohibited by states.’
third, you ask the member(s), ‘Do you think it ought to be against the law...’

Soooo, if one and two are already in place, as you led the membership to believe, WHY would you need to ask ‘if it ought to be?’

BTW, another nit...forum mandates state, member’s MUST CITE appropriate stautory guidance which you failed to do.
 
Last edited:

Doug_Nightmare

Active member
Joined
Nov 21, 2018
Messages
717
Location
Washington Island, WISCONSIN. Out in Lake Michigan
Wisc Stats CHAPTER 950 RIGHTS OF VICTIMS AND WITNESSES OF CRIME

https://docs.legis.wisconsin.gov/statutes/statutes/950

950.04  Basic bill of rights for victims and witnesses.
(dr) To not have his or her personal identifiers, as defined in s. 85.103 (1) and including an electronic mail address, used or disclosed by a public official, employee, or agency for a purpose that is unrelated to the official responsibilities of the official, employee, or agency.

Media is not “public ... agency”.
 

color of law

Accomplished Advocate
Joined
Oct 7, 2007
Messages
5,936
Location
Cincinnati, Ohio, USA
Wisc Stats CHAPTER 950 RIGHTS OF VICTIMS AND WITNESSES OF CRIME

https://docs.legis.wisconsin.gov/statutes/statutes/950

950.04  Basic bill of rights for victims and witnesses.
(dr) To not have his or her personal identifiers, as defined in s. 85.103 (1) and including an electronic mail address, used or disclosed by a public official, employee, or agency for a purpose that is unrelated to the official responsibilities of the official, employee, or agency.

Media is not “public ... agency”.
950.02  Definitions. In this chapter:
950.02(4)(a)(a) “Victim" means any of the following:
1. A person against whom a crime has been committed.......

Clearly, you are not a "Victim" until the perpetrator is convicted of the crime.
 

CJ4wd

Regular Member
Joined
Jun 22, 2017
Messages
353
Location
Planet Earth
950.02  Definitions. In this chapter:
950.02(4)(a)(a) “Victim" means any of the following:
1. A person against whom a crime has been committed.......

Clearly, you are not a "Victim" until the perpetrator is convicted of the crime.

Tell that to a woman who has been raped and see how far you get.
You are a "victim" from the beginning of any criminal incident. Conviction of the perp has no effect on being victimized, just on the punishment.
 

eye95

Well-known member
Joined
Jan 6, 2010
Messages
13,524
Location
Fairborn, Ohio, USA
Isn’t it possible for it to be officially found that a crime has been committed and than an individual is a victim, without necessarily identifying or convicting the perpetrator?
 

color of law

Accomplished Advocate
Joined
Oct 7, 2007
Messages
5,936
Location
Cincinnati, Ohio, USA
Tell that to a woman who has been raped and see how far you get.
You are a "victim" from the beginning of any criminal incident. Conviction of the perp has no effect on being victimized, just on the punishment.
I am a very compassionate person. I would never tell a woman who has been raped that she was not a victim.

Unfortunately, legally speaking not so.
Blacks Law Dictionary:
Victim. The person who is the object of a crime.
Crime. A positive or negative act in violation of penal law.
Criminal. One who has committed a criminal offense; one who has been legally convicted of a crime; one adjudged guilty of crime.
 

gutshot II

Regular Member
Joined
Jul 1, 2017
Messages
782
Location
Central Ky.
There were three people shot dead and two others shot and wounded. Who knows how many rounds fired, several police officers on scene, many cop cars, multiple ambulances, fire dept. and EMT's. You somehow expect to keep this location secret? Good luck!
 

since9

Campaign Veteran
Joined
Jan 14, 2010
Messages
6,964
Location
Colorado Springs, Colorado, USA
There were three people shot dead and two others shot and wounded. Who knows how many rounds fired, several police officers on scene, many cop cars, multiple ambulances, fire dept. and EMT's. You somehow expect to keep this location secret? Good luck!

Don't be silly. Those involved will always know the location.

Don't see any harm.
If the bad guy has buddies those buddies in all likelihood already knew he where he was going to hit. So that isn't an issue.

JMO I don't see it as an issue one way or the other.

This isn't about classifying the location so absolutely no one knows about it. It's about minimizing the number of those who do know about it in order to minimize the likelihood of retribution. It also helps narrow the list of suspects in case there is an act of reprisal.

It's called "respecting the victim's right to privacy." It's also called "protecting the victims from retribution by family, friends, and sympathizers of the perpetrators," especially when the victim was put in a situation by the perpetrators whereby he had to shoot them in order to preserve his own life, limb, and property from harm. Revealing the gent's location by filming the street signs in the forefront of his house is just INVITING harm against the innocent.

In fact, such blitheringly idiotic disregard for the privacy of the intended victim on the part of the media or others often results in retaliatory acts by others, including those who have no association with the original perpetrators whatsoever.

A prime example would be the vandalism committed against Assoc. Justice Kavanaugh's home and death threats received by him and his family, much the same as his accuser received.

As an advocate for law and order, you bet your bippy I support laws prohibiting the media from revealing the domicile of those who exercise their Second Amendment rights. Don't you???
 
Top