So as I feared, when the judge in the involuntary manslaughter trial of former Police Chief Ed Fleury ruled the jury could see the horrific video (but not hear the sound track) of a little boy accidentally shooting himself in the head at point blank rage, that opened the door for the evidence to go public--and in this day and age that guarantees Internet viral video status.
Judge Peter Velis , over the objections of the prosecution and defense attorneys, has now ruled the digital video can be turned over to the media. Ugh!
And even if my friends at the Springfield Republican and Daily Hampshire Gazette decide they are a family newspaper and the content just too graphic and disturbing to disseminate, somebody will publish it, and once it gets out it will explode across the web like a photon torpedo.
According to the National Press Photographers Association code of ethics:
"Treat all subjects with respect and dignity. Give special consideration to vulnerable subjects and compassion to victims of crime or tragedy. Intrude on private moments of grief only when the public has an overriding and justifiable need to see."
As Mr. Fleury's attorney pointed out a few months ago, there is no dispute about the fact that an Uzi is a deadly weapon. And no dispute that it caused the death of an 8-year-old child. Does the jury really need to see the blood and brain tissue to be convinced?
I have the right to not to watch it, which--like the gruesome beheading of Danny Pearl video--I will choose to invoke. Unfortunately the jury in this case has no such choice.
My original lament
Ch. 22 reports