YouTube "Honors"
My YouTube post is one of the most discussed and commented on videos on YouTube today. I did a check and more than 2500 have seen the video in the last 24 hours. But only one person came to ShowMeBlog from YouTube!
"Mr. Howard,
I strongly disagree with your comments in which you passive-aggressively defend the attackers of the investigative reporter. There are major flaws in each and every one of your arguments.
1. An investigative reporter, especially one who is an attorney, knows the law. If he was on someone's property without consent, that would be trespass and the individual who did not give consent can easily recieve nominal damages. They can also bring civil charges against the investigative reporter who unlawfully harrasses them. So there are certainly several outlets for these individuals to take other than attacking the reporter.
However, you refute your own claim by stating, "I am sure these people are guilty.. they deserve to be in jail..." How does your point of aggressive reporting have any validity in this case?
2.) He is an attorney and he works for Fox News, so he deserves to get beaten? You points are incredibly moronic. I am sure there are a countless number of lawyers that work for companies in which you disagree with; they all deserve to be physically assaulted?
3.) Jury selection alone would not allow anyone with biases against Fox News, Attorneys, or "News Men" (whatever that implies), would be allowed by the prosecution. Even ignoring that point, if a juror was to state that as reason for not convicting both the wife and husband with assault (and possibly aggrivated assault after having picked up the rock) the trial judge (and appellate judge, for that matter) would have the ability to state it as impermissable and their decision would be nullified.
While I see you are only trying to play devil's advocate, you are making very poor assumptions and crossing the line of irrationality. I hope you will consider a position more intelligently before posting it on such a public forum.
DMBrian77"
I strongly disagree with your comments in which you passive-aggressively defend the attackers of the investigative reporter. There are major flaws in each and every one of your arguments.
1. An investigative reporter, especially one who is an attorney, knows the law. If he was on someone's property without consent, that would be trespass and the individual who did not give consent can easily recieve nominal damages. They can also bring civil charges against the investigative reporter who unlawfully harrasses them. So there are certainly several outlets for these individuals to take other than attacking the reporter.
However, you refute your own claim by stating, "I am sure these people are guilty.. they deserve to be in jail..." How does your point of aggressive reporting have any validity in this case?
2.) He is an attorney and he works for Fox News, so he deserves to get beaten? You points are incredibly moronic. I am sure there are a countless number of lawyers that work for companies in which you disagree with; they all deserve to be physically assaulted?
3.) Jury selection alone would not allow anyone with biases against Fox News, Attorneys, or "News Men" (whatever that implies), would be allowed by the prosecution. Even ignoring that point, if a juror was to state that as reason for not convicting both the wife and husband with assault (and possibly aggrivated assault after having picked up the rock) the trial judge (and appellate judge, for that matter) would have the ability to state it as impermissable and their decision would be nullified.
While I see you are only trying to play devil's advocate, you are making very poor assumptions and crossing the line of irrationality. I hope you will consider a position more intelligently before posting it on such a public forum.
DMBrian77"
