SoylentNews is people
SoylentNews
When a small-town Arizona cop stopped a 12-year-old reporter who was chasing down a story tip on Monday, he probably had no idea what he was getting himself into.
Hilde Kate Lysiak, the preteen journalist whose exploits have inspired a Scholastic book series and an upcoming TV show, made a name for herself in 2016 by being the first to report on a grisly murder in her hometown, then firing back at the haters who suggested that a 9-year-old girl shouldn't be hanging around crime scenes. Since then, she has continued to break news about bank robberies, alleged rapes and other lurid crimes in the Orange Street News, the paper that she publishes out of her parents' home in Selinsgrove, Pa.
"NOTE TO DEALERS: OSN Will Not Be Intimidated," she wrote last month, after reportedly receiving threats because she had published text message exchanges between an alleged drug dealer and a woman whom he had reportedly solicited for sex.
So naturally, she didn't back down when Joseph Patterson, the town marshal in Patagonia, Ariz., allegedly threatened to throw her in juvenile jail on Monday, then falsely claimed it would be illegal for her to film him and publish the video on the Internet. Instead, she posted their exchange on YouTube and in the Orange Street News — which in turn prompted town officials to discipline Patterson, as the Nogales International was the first to report on Wednesday.
[...] In the Orange Street News, Lysiak wrote that she was riding her bike to investigate a tip at around 1:30 p.m. on Monday when Patterson, whose position in the small town is equivalent to that of a police chief, stopped her and asked for identification. The 12-year-old gave her name and phone number and mentioned that she was a member of the media. She said Patterson told her, "I don't want to hear about any of that freedom-of-the-press stuff" and added that he would have her arrested and thrown in juvenile jail.
Later, Lysiak ran into Patterson again. This time, she was filming.
"You stopped me earlier and you said that I can be thrown in juvie," she can be heard asking in the video. "What exactly am I doing that's illegal?"
From the seat of his white Chevy Silverado truck, Patterson started to reply, then interrupted himself. "You taping me?" he asked. "You can tape me, okay, but what I'm going to tell you is if you put my face on the Internet, it's against the law in Arizona."
In fact, there is no such law. Recording a law enforcement officer in a public place is protected under the First Amendment, as Lysiak noted when she posted the video online later that day.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday February 27 2019, @05:54PM (5 children)
I don't know of anywhere in Levitical Law which specifies lashing as a punishment. My understanding is that in ancient Israel execution was by stoning. Furthermore, I seem to recall that the Romans considered 40 lashes with a scourge (similar to a cat o' nine tails) to be lethal. Hence, 39 lashes was considered to be just short of a death sentence.
(Score: 2, Interesting) by nitehawk214 on Wednesday February 27 2019, @06:35PM
So that's where that scene in Babylon 5 got that from. Nice.
"Don't you ever miss the days when you used to be nostalgic?" -Loiosh
(Score: 1, Informative) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday February 27 2019, @07:05PM (3 children)
Deuteronomy 25:1-3
Jewish custom limited it to 39 lashes -- the reasons are not quite clear to me, as I've heard two incompatible explanations:
The combination, of course, makes no sense, since miscounting your threes would put you two over the prescribed limit...
While stoning was the most commonly specified capital punishment, the talmud also prescribed deaths by burning, strangling, and beheading for certain crimes. But that's got nothing to do with whipping, which was used as corporal punishment, not a means of capital punishment, nor a prelude to it as in the Roman crucifixion process.
On a meta note: Instead of buttressing your argument with any citations, you just reiterate that you actually think what you said before is true? That's your choice of course, but I don't understand what you thought was added to the conversation by saying it again -- nobody was doubting your sincerity, only suggesting you made an honest mistake of fact.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday February 27 2019, @07:08PM
I should say, I'm assuming you're tangomargarine posting from a not-logged-in computer or device. If you're someone else entirely, sorry for the confusion, but two people sincerely believing the same mistaken notion doesn't add anything to the conversation either -- not when evidence to actually settle the question is just a google away.
(Score: 2) by DannyB on Wednesday February 27 2019, @08:15PM
Thank you for providing the direct reference. I was too lazy to look it up.
The lower I set my standards the more accomplishments I have.
(Score: 2) by tangomargarine on Thursday February 28 2019, @03:39PM
I am not the AC above.
"Is that really true?" "I just spent the last hour telling you to think for yourself! Didn't you hear anything I said?"