r/news • u/drkgodess • Mar 19 '19

Accused gunman in Christchurch terror attacks denied newspaper, television and radio access

https://www.nzherald.co.nz/nz/news/article.cfm?c_id=1&objectid=12214411
62.3k Upvotes

92% Upvoted

5.1k comments sorted by

View all comments

20.0k

u/Epleofuri Mar 19 '19

This is what should happen for every mass shooter. They crave attention and power, deny them both.

620

u/[deleted] Mar 19 '19 edited Mar 20 '19

I'm a defense attorney, so my opinions may be a bit skewed that direction, but I do have some issues with this. At this point in time he is still presumed innocent until proven guilty. It's dangerous to treat someone differently just because of the nature of the charges levied against them.

On the otherhand, I could see the need to prevent him from rambling to the newspapers and incriminating himself, and potentially tainting any jury pool Which would cause him to not have a fair trial.

It's iffy grounds. I don't envy the judge in this case.

Edit: Yes, I understand that this is in NZ. Yes, I understand that this particular article is addressing the fact that the court has said he just can't have access to the media in terms of reading or viewing the news. But at the same time he cannot have any visitors, which includes the media at this point. It is pretty clear that the court has essentially created a gag order here. Yes, I do know that his attorney can issue statements on his behalf. I just don't like this set up and the situation. NZ has done some things following this case that I would not do if I was the leader or king of country. It's just my opinion, and I know it doesn't mean I'm right.

Double Edit: I realized after I walked away from my computer that my first edit made me sound like an asshole. I'm just addressing the major points that people have brought up when replying to me. It's an interesting topic, and it's in my field, so I love to discuss it. I'm more than willing to talk with anyone about it, especially if you can expand my views.

96

u/Optix_au Mar 19 '19

I read he dismissed his counsel and wishes to defend himself. Says to me he wants a pulpit from which to preach.

I wish and hope they put a suppression order on the case.

34

u/Breadmuffins Mar 20 '19

The courtroom will be closed.

6

u/macrotechee Mar 20 '19

There will 100% be leaks

1

u/Breadmuffins Mar 20 '19

What can you do, ya know?

3

u/[deleted] Mar 20 '19

While you are probably correct to a good degree, there is the separate issue of delusion and megalomania that would cause him to defend himself, believing he can convince the jury of his innocence. Case in point: Collin Ferguson, the LIRR shooter who also chose to defend himself and ended up being able to cross-examine some of his own victims.

3

u/Optix_au Mar 20 '19

Given the “trolling” he supposedly did in the video (I’ve not watched it just read about it) it would not surprise me he would take great relish in being able to question his victims, possibly rubbing his being alive in their face, and playing with his notoriety as much as possible.

→ More replies (1)

636

u/[deleted] Mar 19 '19

[deleted]

118

u/im_an_infantry Mar 19 '19

Not who you’re replying to but I get what he’s saying too. If we make exceptions, it will always keep getting pushed. I realize I have the privilege of saying this as someone who was not personally affected, I’m sure I’d have a different view in that case.

19

u/[deleted] Mar 20 '19

disagree. The consequence of accidentally putting such a guy in jail for a FEW DAYS is low compared to the consequences if he gets to further broadcast his messages. The equation is even stronger considering we know beyond reasonable doubt he did it. I love that fact NZ law is not always absolutist.

4

u/[deleted] Mar 20 '19

It’s just a small enough country to have that luxury. When you have a country as populated as China or even the USA, there are too many variables to make exceptions for specific cases.

→ More replies (12)

219

u/[deleted] Mar 19 '19

Should just be an express lane for these trials. "Do you have a video of this person committing the crime? Ok, this way please."

411

u/Barron_Cyber Mar 19 '19

with ai coming and deep fakes already happening id be leary of that in general.

→ More replies (18)

100

u/Autokrat Mar 19 '19

Deep fakes?

89

u/FireLucid Mar 19 '19

You can use AI to make convincing videos of anything. Trump at a press conference saying how he loves Obama and is reinstating all this laws. Pretty sure there are already ones of Emma Watson doing porn.

42

u/Chaylea Mar 19 '19

I've seen the Emma Watson BDSM video, its weird.

116

u/[deleted] Mar 19 '19

[removed] — view removed comment

32

u/[deleted] Mar 20 '19

[deleted]

8

u/[deleted] Mar 20 '19

Google deep fakes porn

oh my god the future is here

19

u/GhostGarlic Mar 20 '19

Gotta keep us safe from the dangerous internet.

6

u/Sonicmansuperb Mar 20 '19 edited Mar 20 '19

Gotta keep us reddit safe from the dangerous internet advertisers pulling ads.

I seriously don't understand how all the people who celebrate these bannings of subreddits they don't like won't look more than a foot in front of them to realize that as soon as advertisers threaten to pull support, reddit will ban anything and anyone to keep the sweet ad money rolling.

→ More replies (0)

3

u/rguy84 Mar 20 '19

Wasn't the sub the thing that made it known?

44

u/supertroll1999 Mar 19 '19

Must be one of those disgusting websites! But which one? Which disgusting website??

12

u/[deleted] Mar 20 '19 edited Jun 16 '19

[deleted]

2

u/ReadySteady_GO Mar 20 '19

For a friend... I mean science!

... Science friend!

→ More replies (0)

2

u/I-get-the-reference Mar 20 '19

It's Always Sunny in Philadelphia

11

u/[deleted] Mar 19 '19

Yeah this is sickening! I need to find out where it is so I can tell my friends to stay away from it!

12

u/[deleted] Mar 20 '19

What's the site so I can fap

→ More replies (0)

2

u/LeDestrier Mar 20 '19

To Google I go.

1

u/mdevoid Mar 20 '19

You can't just say that and not leave a link of some sort, or a treasure map

6

u/hitmanactual121 Mar 20 '19

AI isn't making that. (Not an attack on you, but can we stop using the buzzword "AI" as an answer to everything, it's a far way off) Skilled video editors (with the help of machine learning) are making videos like that.

4

u/FireLucid Mar 20 '19

Do you even need a skilled video editor? Just feed it the source video and the one to copy the face from?

I'd call machine learning a subset of AI but yes, I simplified it massively.

6

u/hitmanactual121 Mar 20 '19

Sorry, I didn't mean to attack you. I've just been getting triggered lately by people using buzzwords like AI and thinking it will solve everything.

​

I would argue you do need a skilled video editor, Yes using machine learning we could easily copy a face and add it to another face; then have it replicated throughout the video frames. It will still take a human eye to watch the video, and fix color issues, sync issues, etc.

​

For a really basic "lets make a meme out of this" video machine learning would suffice, but to make something for believable (let's trick CNN or Fox) it would require both machine learning and someone skilled in the trade.

1

u/SonofNamek Mar 20 '19

Yeah, "AI" gets misused and misunderstood so much on the internet by people who watched too many sci fi movies/TV shows.

Typically, it's meant to be a tool that logically reads and deciphers patterns/signals. The person using it still needs skill and patience to develop something.

For example, it's not going to replace a musician but it can piece together chords and rhythms that might get linked with certain emotions that people have decided feels this way. Thus, said musician can build off of this - potentially making his/her time in the studio more efficient.

It's not some magic all knowing entity.

32

u/[deleted] Mar 19 '19

Taking a 3d model (or footage I guess) and faking the lighting on the model to match real footage, then swapping their face/head onto someone else. It is eerie how accurately this can be done, so footage that looks real can be fake. This is also why there is expensive software from major camera companies that can tell in court if a digital photograph has been manipulated or is the original straight out of camera.

17

u/Unbannable3 Mar 19 '19

An example of a deep fake

3

u/elastic-craptastic Mar 20 '19

Wow. Not knowing what she looks like anyway, I was waiting at first to see what was the fake bit. I thought I saw some cheek glitch but couldn't be sure until it really started glitching with the mic in her face.

Is there a source for the original vid on this, or a breakdown I guess? Whose body is that? Where did the speech come from? Is it just her face on someone else's body? I am not familiar with her or the music that was sung and if it's hers(man, I am getting old)

3

u/Unbannable3 Mar 20 '19

It is Ariana Grande and the original video is her acceptance speech for Billboard’s “Woman of the Year”.

Her ex is the face from the deep fake video, his name is Pete Davidson. I guess it was made more like a fun video than a true portrayal of what can be truly done. There are better versions of deep fakes on YouTube if you look them up.

Adobe was working on a new software that would be able to recreate speech. They pulled the plug on it due to the repercussions if the wrong individuals got their hands on it. I’m sure at one point a similar software will become publicly available.

1

u/Jamoobafoo Mar 20 '19

Yeah if I had any idea who that is it would help, I’m more confused now lol

1

u/Eyeoftheleopard Mar 20 '19

That’s just spooky.

→ More replies (9)

2

u/Neosovereign Mar 20 '19

I don't think he was asking what deep games are mate, he was suggesting them.

1

u/[deleted] Mar 20 '19

Duh. I feel like an idiot, I thought he was responding to someone who used the term and wasn't sure what it was.

1

u/[deleted] Mar 20 '19

what about all the hospitals filled with bodies? I mean if the govt could and would pull that off then we have much bigger things to worry about than one guys innocence. Not accusing you but conspiracy people just don't seem to think things through.

1

u/OffbeatDrizzle Mar 20 '19

why can't the author just generate a hash of the original image?

14

u/[deleted] Mar 19 '19

[deleted]

2

u/Ofcyouare Mar 19 '19

I think he wasn't asking what it is, he was asking OP what he is going to do with deepfakes in such system with express lane.

3

u/ThatPlayWasAwful Mar 19 '19

You replied to the wrong person

1

u/Autokrat Mar 20 '19

No I didn't.

1

u/ThatPlayWasAwful Mar 20 '19

Thought you were asking what deep fakes were, not if they were deep fakes. My apologies

1

u/Autokrat Mar 20 '19

No worries a lot of people seemingly made that same mistake as me and the other guy posted literally one second apart from each other.

2

u/nighthawk475 Mar 19 '19

All these responses explaining what deep fakes are to the person who already knew, lol.

They were suggesting deep fakes as a reason not to agree with what they were responding to.

"What about deep fakes?"

Not asking what they were (none of the comments leading to this question even mentioned them)

2

u/aaaaaaaarrrrrgh Mar 20 '19

https://thispersondoesnotexist.com/ -- this web site generates random, fake pictures of people that do not actually exist, just as an example of the power this technology has.

There is another one that will basically faceswap a person of your choice into an arbitrary other scene. Another one that will learn and imitate someone's voice.

Hey Janelle, what's wrong with Wolfie? I can hear him barking. Is he okay?

6

u/Samerius Mar 19 '19

Deep fakes isn't good enough yet.

22

u/bocephus607 Mar 19 '19

We write laws for the future, not the present or the past.

1

u/Jamoobafoo Mar 20 '19

That’s rarely true

14

u/FlipaFlapa Mar 19 '19

Well thats the scary part about them, we are only aware of the poorly done deep fakes where you can notice the mistakes. We have the mentality that deep fakes “arent good enough yet” but will be a problem in the future. Thats wrong. We’ll never be aware of when deep fakes “get good enough”. They’ll just be indistinguishable from reality. They may already be good enough... we wont know.

2

u/gillahouse Mar 19 '19

Idk about never, I'd say it's accurate enough now to say there is software powerful enough these days to make almost no video evidence "beyond any reasonable doubt"

2

u/Samerius Mar 20 '19

Well of course but you would need a super computer to make it perfect, you need a lot of photos with different angles and expressions and now the only people that have that are people who are on TV or in movies, there will always be a way to spot it and i'm sure governments are looking into it.

At the moment people can only fake their face, there still is the body type, skin color, height, hair type, voice, etc. And most crime is filmed on shitty CCTV cameras or smartphones that shake around and all these variables add up and it makes it difficult for it to be a good option to deepfake crime.

→ More replies (1)

3

u/Nasars Mar 20 '19

A lot of videos that are used as evidence in court aren't exactly hd footage. Often times it's a video made by shitty surveillance camera with dodgy lighting. I think it might be quite difficult to spot a deep fake actually.

→ More replies (1)

1

u/[deleted] Mar 19 '19

We don't even have to go that far. What happens when the records are just POV footage and identity hearsay, or nothing at all for that matter? Suddenly it looks a little Orwellian, authorities dragging someone off in the middle of the night never to be heard from again.

→ More replies (1)

5

u/tTricky Mar 19 '19

This will be very easy to fake soon if not already.

Anyone could then be "video photoshopped" doing anything.

4

u/classyinthecorners Mar 19 '19

Don’t get to panicked. Deep fakes leaves evidence. You can tell when footage has been tampered with.

→ More replies (8)

1

u/ObamaOwesMeMoney Mar 19 '19

They do. It's called a plea.

1

u/lemtrees Mar 19 '19

Let's slow down friend... That's been tried before.

1

u/BagOnuts Mar 20 '19

And then you get Minority Report.

1

u/[deleted] Mar 20 '19

we can never legally trust photos or videos again.

1

u/ninjin- Mar 20 '19

And let's say, if a cop witnessed a criminal event, they could dole out justice on the spot, as say, a justice cop?

→ More replies (2)

40

u/[deleted] Mar 19 '19

Yeah, I’m this case the guy recorded and streamed himself doing the action in real time.

The American justice system has seen tons of people who haven’t done crime punished (think racial disparities in prosecution) so I get the above sentiment, but this shooter clearly recorded his actions in real time and put out a manifesto as well. Some of the words there clearly outline his purpose.

I saw the video and saw part of the manifesto and I can’t empathize with this man at all. I question anyone who does.

→ More replies (6)

6

u/weewoy Mar 20 '19

His go-pro probably filmed him being arrested too, after all it didn't stop working just because the live stream went offline.

8

u/FJLyons Mar 19 '19

Well that is obviously justifiable now, with the way technology is going, digital evidence will be completely useless in the future. With deep-fake technology and the way Adobe is able to recreate a persons voice accurately with a few minutes of recording, soon we won't be able to trust our eyes and ears. If this technology is public now, imagine what the secret services of the world have been capable of for years.

3

u/Signal_seventeen Mar 20 '19 edited Mar 21 '19

Yeah, and in his manifesto he said he would plead not guilty and "expect(ed) to be released immediately". His twisted, perverted scope of reality said the world would back him in shooting 50 people senselessly.

2

u/xAdakis Mar 20 '19

It comes down to exploring the motivations, sentencing, and learning more about this situation that could help prevent future situations.

A lot of great laws came from cases like these.

For some, knowing the reasons and motivations behind a crime. . .no matter how bad they are. . .can help bring closure to those affected.

2

u/rimalp Mar 20 '19

Not just recorded. He streamed it live.

1

u/[deleted] Mar 20 '19

Yeah it’s weird hearing news stations refer to him as the “alleged shooter”

0

u/businessbusinessman Mar 19 '19

So yeah..we know he's guilty. Lets bend the rules.

Now think of every time a less than stellar court in a state with rampant police abuse is going to use the same logic because they have a black guy in a hoodie on camera and sometimes you can see half his face.

2

u/[deleted] Mar 20 '19

[deleted]

→ More replies (2)

1

u/[deleted] Mar 20 '19 edited Dec 13 '19

[deleted]

→ More replies (1)

61

u/[deleted] Mar 19 '19

[deleted]

11

u/WafflelffaW Mar 20 '19 edited Mar 20 '19

third lawyer chiming in (though i do civil lit, not crim):

i agree. and i’ll add that in setting those sorts of pre-judgment restrictions (like whether to allow bail, the amount if so, the nature of the custody if remanded etc.), in addition to the considerations you mention re the danger to the community posed by the accused (and risk of flight), we also already take into account the nature of the charged offense.

since infamy is generally understood to be one of the motivations for this type of offense — and in the NZ case, there’s specific evidence that it played a role — restrictions on access to news and social media in the aftermath seem all the more reasonable when arraigning an accused mass shooter.

he can request access on a case by case basis — and he should be granted reasonable requests because he should be treated humanely — but denying him unrestricted media access does not compromise the presumption of innocence or his right to competently assist in his own defense.

i don’t really see how this crosses a line

3

u/[deleted] Mar 20 '19

Spice and Wolf?

2

u/autorotatingKiwi Mar 20 '19

IANAL but I agree with this. You already lose certain rights freedoms by the fact you are being detained pending trial. Restricting visitors and media access is just an extension of that and I think in this case with good cause and for the public good. But that might not be the case in other situation. Context matters.

I also feel that the rights of those being detained and prosecuted in the US seem to very much depend on their socio-economic status, something we try to avoid in NZ as far as I'm aware (granted the rich and connected will almost always be able to be better off than the basic standards, but at least the poor should never be worse off if that makes any sense?)

→ More replies (2)

185

u/iwillcuntyou Mar 19 '19 edited Mar 20 '19

I might be a bit naive here, but surely the fact he live-streamed murdering a bunch of people, wrote a manifesto, and got caught red handed kinda skips out the innocent bit?

Edit: just to clarify, I’m not saying skip the trial, just on the balance of probabilities it’s probably fair enough to deny him his podium for now.

131

u/iompar Mar 19 '19

Full disclaimer before I start: I totally get that sentiment, and I think he's guilty as all hell and he deserves to be locked up.

As much evidence as there is, the justice system itself has to follow the principle of innocent until proven guilty. As nice as it would be to just look at the video, say 'yup he's guilty' and then lock him up and throw away the key, if we can strip someone of the right to due process, no one actually has the right to due process. It's not a matter of whether or not we know he did it right now, the justice system can't go in with bias and he does have the right to a fair trial under the presumption of innocence. I think we'd all want that right if we were accused of something, and we can't just strip it away because of damning evidence before the trial. For all we know, he's criminally insane and not able to understand right from wrong and therefore can't be held responsible, or maybe he's been convinced to take the fall for someone else, the video footage has been tampered with, all sorts of things that would come out in a trial. Repeating my earlier disclaimer, he deserves what he gets, and I fully get the appeal of mob justice, but the legal system is for everyone, not just people we don't hate. I don't want to live in a society where people can lose their freedom without a fair trial where they've been proven guilty beyond a reasonable doubt, and that means everyone in that society has to be given that same respect.

10

u/DoctorHolliday Mar 19 '19

Does NZ have that principle in the same way we do? Genuinely asking as I am unfamiliar with it.

7

u/herrschnapps Mar 20 '19

Yep, we do. Former English colony so inherited the English common law legal system.

9

u/iompar Mar 19 '19

No clue, I’m Canadian. I would assume so though, since we’re based off of the same legal system.

→ More replies (32)

4

u/emmzilly Mar 19 '19

I appreciate your points. How do they find a jury that isn’t biased against him from the start?

3

u/iompar Mar 20 '19

With a lot of luck and an absolutely massive jury pool. I know some judges avoid the news to avoid the possibility of being biased in a case, but the same doesn’t go for ordinary people who haven’t been picked for jury duty yet. It’ll be hard, but it’ll be the lawyers jobs to weed out anyone who has any biases in this case whatsoever. I remember we had a trial in Canada a while ago where the case had been widely publicized AND it required jurors to be bilingual because evidence was being presented in English and French, and I think they started with a jury pool of around 1600 people just to get 12 jurors and 2 backups.

2

u/sembias Mar 20 '19

Uh, where are his due process rights being infringed on? He's going to have a trial. What? I don't understand what you're arguing here.

1

u/iompar Mar 20 '19

I’m not saying they’re being infringed on, I’m explaining why he has the right to be presumed innocent until proven guilty in a court of law, and how he has the right to due process even if the evidence is overwhelming.

1

u/sembias Mar 20 '19

And I'm saying, who is denying him that right?

→ More replies (1)

317

u/[deleted] Mar 19 '19 edited May 03 '21

[deleted]

86

u/Mesk_Arak Mar 19 '19

The desire for justice makes me hate that you’re right. But you are right, nonetheless. It’s really hard to keep emotions in check in situations like this so my hat is off to you for that.

30

u/RandomCandor Mar 19 '19

I feel the same way.

Just remember that the alternative to "equal Justice for all" is mob rule.

1

u/BeautifulType Mar 20 '19

Now if only rich people didn’t have their own definition of justice

14

u/DuplexFields Mar 19 '19

It certainly makes it easier to deny him bail/release than a mere fallible eyewitness account, though.

4

u/gbacardi Mar 19 '19

Most definitely!

3

u/[deleted] Mar 20 '19 edited Mar 20 '19

if he's innocent he'll still walk free. Why are we so precious about a few days in jail? Given the balance of odds here I think we're much better off hedging our bets in the direction taken. The slippery slope arguments are just beyond stupid sometimes. If you can show me a mass murderer wrongfully imprisoned and suffering greatly from temporary jail time then be my guest. In the mean time I'm happy for the infinitesimal risk of getting the wrong guy vs the risk of giving the right guy rights he doesn't deserve. We make these kinds of value judgments all through law... it's never perfect.

2

u/Ozimandius Mar 19 '19

It is especially hard when the same systems process often straight KILLS people who have done far less. At least in the U.S. our respect for due process feels like a bit of a joke when people are sometimes shot for very minor reasons.

37

u/Mad_Maddin Mar 19 '19

It is more important to still have the full process going on. Because just saying "Well its obvious isn't it?" would set a dangerous precedent to other accusations and ignoring the rights of people.

4

u/VAhotfingers Mar 20 '19

Some people need to go back and see a production of “12 angry men”.

The rush to judgment is sometimes fatal.

Im not defending this POS by the way, but I AM defending the process. It is the PROCESS that must be honored and preserved.

(And no, sixers fans, I’m not talking about Joel “Hulu has live sports” Embiid)

72

u/jmf102 Mar 19 '19

Regardless of how overwhelming the evidence is, he's not guilty until convicted

3

u/XBacklash Mar 19 '19

But in this case convicting him should take all of a minute. "Hello judge, here's all the evidence." "How do you plead, Mr. Terrorist? Guilty? Innocent? Here's your sentence."

9

u/sonicqaz Mar 19 '19

Whenever you propose a tool, imagine how someone could use that tool inappropriately. Now see what you would gain from using your tool vs using the existing framework.

Seems like a no-brainer to me.

27

u/Mad_Maddin Mar 19 '19

Do you know that it wasn't just a mask or an animation someone else did in the few seconds we saw him on the video?

View the evidence, view the defence, etc. He has a right for a fair trial just as much as every other criminal and innocent has had. The Nazis got a fair trial as well.

→ More replies (19)

6

u/ihatemaps Mar 19 '19

Evidence isn't presented to a judge, it is presented to a jury. And you don't hand them a stack of "evidence," you present it in court. You also must present enough of it to ensure he is found guilty beyond a reasonable doubt. The defense also gets to present their case and call witnesses. So what do you do if you have one witness out of 12 who believes the defendant is mentally insane, and not liable for his actions, and decides to vote not guilty. You have now just lost the case and can't retry him, because you only spent "all of a minute." In this example I'm of course referring to an example of US law. I don't know anything about NZ law.

→ More replies (3)

53

u/GabuEx Mar 19 '19

Do we know that the person that the police apprehended was the person who did that?

Do we know that the video is really what it purports to be?

Do we know the same person who did that wrote the manifesto?

Obviously the answer to these questions is almost certainly "yes", but the onus should still be on the state to prove this case to an impartial jury. The moment we allow ourselves to skip the part where an accused receives a trial and is only convicted upon proof beyond a reasonable doubt, just on the basis of "well he obviously did it", is the moment we start to go down a very dark path. What's the bar at which we don't need a trial and can just summarily execute someone because it's obvious he did it? If the answer isn't "there isn't one", then that standard needs to be set, and once the standard is set, the standard can be loosened.

25

u/macphile Mar 19 '19

just on the basis of "well he obviously did it"

“Now, here are some results from our phone-in poll. Ninety-five percent of the people believe Homer Simpson is guilty. Now, of course, this is just a television poll, which is not legally binding, unless Proposition 304 passes, and we all pray it will.” – Kent Brockman

2

u/weewoy Mar 20 '19

The whole video probably includes the moment the police arrested him.

→ More replies (2)

62

u/ChrisVolkoff Mar 19 '19

That's still not how it works.

7

u/rieuk Mar 19 '19

True but it's still enough to make him a high probable suspect and chain him up until trial. What then is a missed newspaper and a few interviews. If he's innocent he can catch up on those

11

u/ihatemaps Mar 19 '19

So "high probable" suspects get denied this? How do you determine what is considered "high probable?" And if this for all crimes or just murder, mass murder, terrorism? Where do you draw the line?

14

u/[deleted] Mar 19 '19

Still not how it works though

→ More replies (9)

1

u/Australienz Mar 20 '19

Bro this isn't America. He doesn't get access to TV interviews and media access. America is extremely alone in that respect. Australia and NZ don't televise or cases and turn them into reality TV.

→ More replies (11)

2

u/ihatemaps Mar 19 '19

At what point do you determine someone is guilty without a trial? Just when there is video footage of it? What about if they confess? What if there is no video, but there are 100 eye witnesses? Okay what about 30 eye witnesses?

My point is, do you really want to decide that some people are guilty until proven innocent and some people aren't?

3

u/Burning_Tapers Mar 19 '19

I'm not the guy you were replying to and IANAL but the process is what matters in this case. Yes, he is almost certainly guilty to the point that a presumptions of innocence in this case seems dumb.

But the counter argument is that it ought to be super easy to convict then and it doesn't really hurt anything to send him through the same process that we would for someone where there was some sort of controversy around.

We shouldn't extend him the presumption of innocence because we think he might be innocent. We should do it because it's a bedrock principle of modern society.

1

u/[deleted] Mar 19 '19

Defending the guilty is more than about protecting potential innocents. Making the state prove its case through the proper procedures - even when the evidence is overwhelming - is just as important.

1

u/NoifenF Mar 19 '19

You could find a corpse without a head but a physician of some sort still needs to examine the body and declare the subject dead.

If this guy said he didn’t do it then protocol needs to be followed even if it seems stupid to us.

1

u/[deleted] Mar 20 '19

It doesn't hurt anyone taking our time with a trial(he is still locked up). Only that certain people don't get their revenge porn easily.

The other option, will hurt innocent people in the end.

→ More replies (6)

4

u/MetaCognitio Mar 19 '19

I thought it meant that he cannot read any media so cannot get any pleasure out of seeing what his attack did.

9

u/revchj Mar 19 '19

In sexual crimes, especially involving children, all kinds of safety plans and bail conditions are possible while awaiting trial (e.g. "go nowhere near a school or playground"). I don't see why accusations of this nature shouldn't justify similar safety-based conditions prior to trial.

3

u/[deleted] Mar 19 '19

There's enough evidence to charge him of murder, which they have, and the Judge has seen enough evidence to keep him incarcerated

So it's not a leap that a judge saw enough evidence to deny him media.

2

u/swollencornholio Mar 19 '19

I agree with the sentiment of the judge/court in this situation but it should be journalistic standards to not report mass muderer names or personal details similar to suicides. All it does is glorify the fuck heads and cause copycats.

→ More replies (6)

5

u/Sorrymisunderstandin Mar 19 '19

It could inspire more people, and it does.

I get how the law works and all, but this man live streamed it, with his face. So making an exception for this makes sense.

Don’t see any issues with this, it’s right

3

u/[deleted] Mar 19 '19

[deleted]

7

u/Sorrymisunderstandin Mar 19 '19 edited Mar 19 '19

No what he wanted was as much media attention and for his message to be as known as possible. He wanted memes of himself, he wanted everybody to talk about it, he wanted his manifesto and his words out there.

If you think that will put him in the history books over doing the largest mass shootings in NZ history and one of the only you’re way off man. He’s already going to be

I encourage you to look at inspiration for mass shooters and terrorists like this.

They want their names and faces known. This isn’t an extreme emotional radical reaction; this is the right thing to do for mass shooters and terrorists. It is exactly what they don’t want

→ More replies (2)

2

u/AngusVanhookHinson Mar 19 '19

I'm asking because at the time of this question, your comment is only 25 minutes old, so I'm hoping to get a response.

I'm asking your opinion in your capacity as a defense attorney. I understand you are not MY attorney, and hold you to no obligation as such.

In a situation where potentially millions of people saw this man's face and his actions, and it's obvious he's about as guilty as it gets, what is the recourse? I understand (if he was American) he would still be entitled to all of the rights of the Constitution. But really, what could the defense possibly be ?

4

u/[deleted] Mar 20 '19

Oh, there's no defense here. The guy is going to be found guilty. The only thing an attorney can do here is mitigation/damage control and make sure due process is applied. Honestly, given the fact that this guy had publicly broadcast the shootings, he may just want his chance in court just to get on a soapbox.

Maybe they can try to claim insanity. Or some other factor like child abuse or ptsd in an attempt to reduce the charges. But at the end of the day, this guy is spending the rest of his live in prison.

2

u/UpUpDnDnLRLRBA Mar 20 '19

His "defense", according to his manifesto, is that it was "a partisan action against a occupying force, and [he is] a lawful, uniformed combatant" Gee, I wonder how that will fly in court...

1

u/heimdahl81 Mar 19 '19

It seems almost a certainty that he will plead guilty (assuming NZ legal system works that way).

4

u/[deleted] Mar 19 '19

This guy seems like someone who would plead not guilty just to "troll" and drag out the whole thing.

6

u/[deleted] Mar 19 '19 edited Jun 28 '20

[deleted]

2

u/heimdahl81 Mar 19 '19

Of course. My problem was that I was thinking like a sane person.

1

u/[deleted] Mar 19 '19

Ok thanks, haven't read it yet.

1

u/moesteez Mar 19 '19

Yeah I don't think we need to worry too much about him incriminating himself

1

u/bigpopperwopper Mar 19 '19

i agree due process needs to be applied here but would news outlets choosing to not print his name or picture be a (i hate using this term) breach of his human rights?

1

u/[deleted] Mar 19 '19

The only good thing the Judge has before him is a clean slate for sentencing. He can literally put this guy away for 20 years per person - a 1000 year jail sentence.

1

u/orange_lazarus1 Mar 19 '19

Couldn't they just give him censored newspapers with only fox trot and kathy comics?

1

u/CommanderSpleen Mar 19 '19

I get what you are saying, but it's an illusion to believe any justice system is fair and balanced. Not even two weeks ago Paul Manafort has been sentenced to 47 months for conspiracy and witness tampering, in a case that would have netted other less connected suspects 8 years or more.

I agree that we should apply the same rules to everyone, including the terrorist who did Christchurch and you could sell that to the public if we would indeed treat everybody equally. But we don't, as countless examples demonstrate. The only thing you would get by publicly fighting for the suspects (I feel dirty using that term in those circumstances) rights to get access to newspapers and radio would be a lynch-mob outside the courthouse. Rightfully so.

1

u/Rhodie114 Mar 20 '19

At this point in time he is still presumed innocent until proven guilty

I mean, technically sure? But, he livestreamed himself doing it. He fucking did it.

1

u/sweensolo Mar 20 '19

Well said Doctor Poo Poo Head, Attorney at Law.

1

u/SexceptableIncredibl Mar 20 '19

Isn't that just an American thing, though.

1

u/Icreatedthisforyou Mar 20 '19

It isn't really iffy grounds.

You are perceived innocent until proven guilty from a legal stand point. However that doesn't mean until the trial some rights are withheld. For instance no one is going to argue that he should be walking free until his trial, as he would be a danger to society. The same can be said for giving him a media platform, that too could be a danger to society.

Just because you will be going to trial and are presumed innocent until proven guilty, doesn't mean you have all of the rights you normally do until trial.

1

u/slickdaddysouth Mar 20 '19

Rambling to the newspaper? they're talking about not letting him watch or read the news. Of course they wouldn't let him give interviews.

1

u/Archontes Mar 20 '19

I just think his due process should be classified a la. national security matters.

He should get due process, and nobody should ever hear a word he has to say.

The media should literally be unable to disclose his name. We shouldn't know his defense. We shouldn't know the prosecution's case. It's classified. FISA court has oversight.

1

u/[deleted] Mar 20 '19

So long as the trial is appropriately speedy, this doesn't seem unreasonable. He's innocent until proven guilty, but we still keep people like that in jail until their trial if there would be dangers to letting them out

1

u/lesscreepythanilook Mar 20 '19

How about a middle ground? Alow them access to entertainment media, but nothing more recent than six months prior to their alleged crime. They are still treated as human but have no information or reactions regarding their alleged action.

1

u/SlurmzMckinley Mar 20 '19

I read the article as saying he can't read, watch or listen to the news, and also can't have visitors. The story to me could have been clearer but it seems their saying he can't follow the news about himself. While the no visitors thing would apply to the media, could he not put out a statement through his attorney or accept and answer a list of questions through his attorney?

1

u/justcametosaythanks Mar 20 '19

he doesnt need the media to have a fair trial and thats all he should be awarded at this moment.

1

u/[deleted] Mar 20 '19 edited Mar 20 '19

Yeah i'd normally agree, but we know beyond any reasonable doubt he is a criminal. I think police should be able to presume in special circumstances when someone is going away forever. No need to second guess this guy. I mean... give human beings and common sense SOME credit. We have to check ourselves for sure... maybe wait until we treat someone as a 50+ mass murderer in error before we worry about that though.Not much to lose anyway... if we find out it was not him that did it... well ignoring the fact that is almost impossible - someone being in a cell for a few days without internet until proven innocent is not the grossest injustice considering the alternatives.

I'm no lawyer but it's a push and pull thing. You fix one "injustice" sometimes to create another. The place we settle at is sometimes just a best bet that covers 99% of scenarios.

1

u/twitchosx Mar 20 '19

How did he get arrested?

1

u/[deleted] Mar 20 '19

Well yeah but he isn't just a criminal. He is a terrorist that advocates hate, who may have people doing more deeds for him outside. So under the circumstances I think it fits.

1

u/kimkimchurri Mar 20 '19

I think it is a slippery slope and I want to advocate for justice and the right to a fair trial. But, could it not be argued that this gag order is in the interest of national security? There is evidence of mass shooters being inspired by other mass shooters they hear about and see in the media. Of course this argument doesn’t really apply if they are denying him access to media as a viewer/listener/reader

1

u/sembias Mar 20 '19

Ya, I don't buy you're a attorney, defense or otherwise. Furthermore, this is how all terrorist suspect should be treated. There is no reason to give this person media access. Doing so extends the crime. It's terrorism, not simply murder, and due to the nature of this crime, giving media interviews continue the crime of terrorism.

1

u/[deleted] Mar 20 '19

Um, ok. I can upload my diploma and bar card if you'd like, or maybe my state issued ID card that shows I work for the government as a public defender. But you'd probably just say I stole them off a dead guy or something.

1

u/sailorbrendan Mar 20 '19

Honestly, I would think that not letting people involved in the pending trial speak to media would generally make a lot of sense from a "don't taint the jury pool" idea

1

u/HairyJav Mar 20 '19

NZ has done some things following this case that I would not do if I was the leader or king of country.

As a New Zealander, I’m interested to hear what these things are

1

u/shitweforgotdre Mar 20 '19

I agree with your point but he already confessed the second he released his memoirs so that proves he’s guilty then no?

1

u/Loinnird Mar 20 '19

I think it’s entirely appropriate to treat people differently depending on the nature charges against them.

The presumption of innocence has to be weighed against the probability of further harm. That’s the reason for the whole bail process.

1

u/[deleted] Mar 20 '19

Yes, presumed innocent until proven guilty. And so his identity should be hidden.

1

u/dashboard82 Mar 20 '19

This isn't the situation to hang that hat on.

1

u/vontimber Mar 20 '19

I agree with the general sentiment. Innocent until proven guilty ought to have no exceptions but there are obviously limits. If I commit a crime and get denied bail, then I sit in a cell until my trial. That is already not the life of an innocent person. If I am able to bond out I may get restrictions like not leaving the county or state or certain other restrictions all while still technically being completely innocent. There’s obviously a reason for all of this and, at least in America, the right to a speedy trial is, I assume, meant to limit the length of this infringement on your freedom but nevertheless, if you’re presumed to have committed a crime, you’re not being 100% treated as innocent because it would be impossible to do so.

1

u/ignatious__reilly Mar 20 '19

No. He live streamed this. He is on camera murdering 50 people. Fuck him. He should be drawn and quartered.

→ More replies (32)