Woman attacks reporters with rocks a baseball bat and pitbulls...

gorugeen

What's the bet the camera man was hoping for some proper carnage to film (judging by his non effort to help her).

Yakult

"Journalists/reporters" are a joke but what irks me about this whole thing is that she owns two dangerous dogs who she has no problem setting them onto people, that's dangerous and irresponsible god ownership, they should be taking off her.

And the black woman is clearly racist "Dumb white bitch", wonder would there be out roar if she was called a "Dumb black bitch"? Probably.

elfy4eva

Yakult wrote: »

"Journalists/reporters" are a joke but what irks me about this whole thing is that she owns two dangerous dogs who she has no problem setting them onto people, that's dangerous and irresponsible god ownership, they should be taking off her.

And the black woman is clearly racist "Dumb white bitch", wonder would there be out roar if she was called a "Dumb black bitch"? Probably.

Everybody breaks taboo's when they're on a rage.
I would never use the C word in a day to day conversation.
But when somebody really gets under my skin I do be
F-ing and C-ing all over the shop.

kowloon

0066ad wrote: »

What a bunch of hypocrites you are! defending this woman... If this happened in a suburb of Dublin or any where else in Ireland you would be calling her a skanger and scumbag and promoting her having a forced sterilisation.

I don't think anyone is saying she gets a free pass for this, I think it's more a case of 'what did they expect?'. I wonder if they called her up for an interview. If they did I'm going to guess that they were told no, if they didn't, well then they just ambushed her outside her house.

doolox

Once or twice I had dealings with persistent journos and once the cops were threatened they backed off very quickly.

I have absolutely no time for the modern breed of scumbag spiv journalists who put their sordid little careers above all forms of common decency and discretion.

not yet

the_syco wrote: »

So, her daughter gets shot on Sunday at a graduation party, and when the shooter gives himself up, the reporters goto the mothers house on Tuesday to push for comments.

The reporter keeps repeating the questions. It seems as she's on a public street, she thinks she can continue to repeat the questions? So the mother throws a rock. Most people would get the hint, but the reporter stays there, and wants to know why she threw the rocks at the camera man. The mother then comes out with a metal bar (baseball bat?) and tells the reporter crew to leave her alone.

Sure, she's on a public road, but what the fcuk did she hope was going to happen? For the mother to break down in tears, for some great TV? Hell no, she fights back.

The reporter got what she came for, and a whole lot more.

So basically what your saying is if a reporter is asked to leave a scene they should, and simply because someone does not want them there.

Princess Consuela Bananahammock

****ing hell - do reporters think they have a God given right to just show up with a microphone and a camera at any given moment with the aim of stickign them in peoples' faces and should be immune to all consequences? And then they have to gall to play the victim card just becuase people react badly to the privacy intrusion?!

Ask permission first, you stupid bitch.

Meritocracy Wins

Princess Consuela Bananahammock wrote: »

****ing hell - do reporters think they have a God given right to just show up with a microphone and a camera at any given moment with the aim of stickign them in peoples' faces and should be immune to all consequences? And then they have to gall to play the victim card just becuase people react badly to the privacy intrusion?!

Ask permission first, you stupid bitch.

Oh, but they have a right not to be attacked :pac:.The rush that is 24 hour news channels have ruined human perspective.

Princess Consuela Bananahammock

not yet wrote: »

So basically what your saying is if a reporter is asked to leave a scene they should, and simply because someone does not want them there.

If the person they went to interview tells them to go then yes - absolutely.

Princess Consuela Bananahammock

Meritocracy Wins wrote: »

Oh, but they have a right not to be attacked :pac:.The rush that is 24 hour news channels have ruined human perspective.

They do. But again it comes back to being respectful and being respectful means askign permission before you stick a camera in someone's face. All it takes is a phone call. And how this is beyond some journalists, I do not understand, especially when dealign with a very emotionally charged situation.

Seachmall

not yet wrote: »

So basically what your saying is if a reporter is asked to leave a scene they should, and simply because someone does not want them there.

They don't have to leave but it'd be the conscionable thing to do.

When your two-bit story becomes more important than respecting the actors in that story you've become another dickhead journalist.

anatomikA_1

Her behaviour is absolutely unacceptable!

Meritocracy Wins

anatomikA_1 wrote: »

Her behaviour is absolutely unacceptable!

Great first post. You'll have a Legend thread soon.

Grayson

not yet wrote: »

So basically what your saying is if a reporter is asked to leave a scene they should, and simply because someone does not want them there.

When the person they are interviewing has done nothing and is accused of nothing, then yes. It'd be different if they were a criminal or a politician who was accused of something. Then they are actually trying to interview someone who might be bad. In this case, the woman was the mother of the victim.

Yamanoto

Quite extraordinary how some folks appear to think the reporters actions somehow constitute a far greater transgression than hurling rocks, casting racial slurs and encouraging dogs to aggressively pursue another person.

elfy4eva

Yamanoto wrote: »

Quite extraordinary how some folks appear to think the reporters actions somehow constitute a far greater transgression than hurling rocks, casting racial slurs and encouraging dogs to aggressively pursue another person.

I dont think anyone would dispute that the mothers actions were legally wrong.
I think most of us just don't feel sympathy for a reporter who
harasses a family outside their home and then twists the
discourse of the news story to suit her.

Potatoeman

Will they put down the dogs?
The racist slur seems to be seen as no big deal by most on here.

du Maurier

Siccing. I'm loving it. Perfectly acceptable word, but you don't read it that often

Princess Consuela Bananahammock

Grayson wrote: »

When the person they are interviewing has done nothing and is accused of nothing, then yes. It'd be different if they were a criminal or a politician who was accused of something. Then they are actually trying to interview someone who might be bad. In this case, the woman was the mother of the victim.

I wouldn't even give them that satisaction - journalists are the worsrt for not knowing the difference between "accused" and "convicted".

Yamanoto wrote: »

Quite extraordinary how some folks appear to think the reporters actions somehow constitute a far greater transgression than hurling rocks, casting racial slurs and encouraging dogs to aggressively pursue another person.

While not justifying what she did, the journalist hung around, the cameraman kept filming. Actions have consequences. Even for reporters.

**Vai**

Attacking with pitbulls wouldn't be how I'd put it. The poor dogs were never gonna touch her. Quite funny to see her prancing away in her heels though.

Loopy

Whatever about who's right or wrong I got a good laugh out that reporter sh1tting herself running down the street like Benny Hill..