Police stage ‘chilling’ raid on Marion County newspaper

[Dill]

(08-24-2023, 02:38 PM)Sociopathicsteelerfan Wrote: Notice how quickly some will rush to validate a hypothesis with no proof?  You even provided a link that stated the state police supported the raid as entirely legal, yet no mention of that.  Odd, is it not?  It's almost like some people have an agenda and the truth isn't necessarily important.

"Some people."  Yes. Very odd.

[GMDino]

(08-24-2023, 02:36 PM)Mike M (the other one) Wrote: That's not really what it's all about.
I doubt the DUI and so on would have a ton of effect on voting. 
however using that info to block her restaurants ability to continue to serve Alcohol is the real issue.

This same paper did this:

Jared Smith, a lifelong Marion resident, said Monday that he supports the police raid. Smith accused the newspaper of ruining his wife’s day spa business opened only a year ago by digging into her past and discovering she had appeared nude in a magazine years before. That fact was repeated in the Record more than 20 times over a six-month period, Smith said.


https://www.mirror.co.uk/news/us-news/police-chief-who-raided-local-30712183





So in a way, it seems they were borderline abusing their power. I see zero purpose (other that being malicious) why they reported the nude info so often but that's a separate issue. 

But they didn't us their power because they didn't publish the story and in fact went tot he police with their concerns over the tip.

Having another person support the raid because they felt personally slighted in the past isn't surprising either.  Welcome to a small town.

Also this is from the same article you linked...

Quote:Police chief who raided local newspaper offices was being investigated over sex claims
Amid accusations of sexual misconduct against a police chief, a local newspaper's office was raided by the police over allegedly obtaining information illegally, prompting press freedom concerns


The surveillance video shows Marion Police Department confiscating computers and cellphones from the publisher (
Image: AP)
By
Lucy WilliamsonSenior Reporter

• 21:55, 15 Aug 2023
  

The police chief who defended the decision to raid a small-town newspaper was being investigated by its reporters over claims of alleged sexual misconduct, reports suggest.


The Marion Police Department are investigating the Marion County Record over allegations that it illegally obtained personal information. 
The police department, headed up by chief Gideon Cody, raided the publisher over allegations they illegally obtained person information about a local business owner.


The newspaper in Kansas struggled to publish its next edition on Monday (14 August) due to a police raid of its office where computers and cellphones were confiscated.


The newspaper claims that it had been investigating Gideon, 54, after receiving an “outpouring of calls” claiming he had retired from his last police post to avoid demotion over sexual misconduct allegations. He denies the allegations.

The information about the claims were contained on one of the computers seized during the raid on the newspaper’s office, newspaper publisher and co-owner Eric Meyer said.






Front entrance to the Marion County Sheriff's department ( 
Image: 
Mark Reinstein/MediaPunch/IPx)

Brian Karman, Gideon’s business partner and colleague of more than two decades, said he knew of no sexual misconduct allegations against Gideon while working for the Kansas City police.

Heck, it was the headline.

You kind of left out the lead, as they say.

It's almost like some people have an agenda and the truth isn't necessarily important. 

[GMDino]

(08-24-2023, 02:38 PM)Sociopathicsteelerfan Wrote: Notice how quickly some will rush to validate a hypothesis with no proof?  You even provided a link that stated the state police supported the raid as entirely legal, yet no mention of that.  Odd, is it not?  It's almost like some people have an agenda and the truth isn't necessarily important.

*I* never said what happened was not "legal".

*I*, I won't speak or anyone else, I said it was questionable given the timeline.

Also from the same article:

Quote:The search warrant names Kari Newell as a victim and lists the underlying reasons for the searches as suspicion of identity theft and “unlawful acts concerning computers.”

She complained publicly about a story that was not written after it was reported to the police who then got a warrant to raid the business and the homes of the employees on the complaint of the subject of the story.

Legal?  I'm sure the i's were dotted and the t's were crossed.  Suspicious?  Yep.  At least to me.

This article, if true, doesn't really help the cause of it not be at least a little bit shady

[Mike M (the other one)]

(08-29-2023, 09:11 AM)GMDino Wrote: But they didn't us their power because they didn't publish the story and in fact went tot he police with their concerns over the tip.

Having another person support the raid because they felt personally slighted in the past isn't surprising either.  Welcome to a small town.

Also this is from the same article you linked...




Heck, it was the headline.

You kind of left out the lead, as they say.

It's almost like some people have an agenda and the truth isn't necessarily important. 

So are you saying that it's ok for the media to obtain someone's personal records and then violate the laws by using it in the way it wasn't allowed to be used (sending a copy of those personal records to the Council to block her business from getting an alcohol license). That's the violation. 

I also pointed out how this particular newspaper attacked another business owner and put them out of business over something that was trivial (posed nude in a magazine years ago and then to keep repeating it, that's showing some animosity towards working tax paying citizens), and really wasn't necessary. I don't mind the media doing their jobs and reporting info, but when you weaponize it in such a way, then you've crossed a line and the protections should no longer apply. Or do you feel otherwise? 

How about the part where the media person told the owner that they would own the restaurant soon? I didn't realize the media could make those kinds of threats.

Anyways, the way i see it (and this is my opinion) is that they have been overstepping their boundaries and going into the legal grey area's.

(08-29-2023, 09:21 AM)GMDino Wrote: *I* never said what happened was not "legal".

*I*, I won't speak or anyone else, I said it was questionable given the timeline.

Also from the same article:

She complained publicly about a story that was not written after it was reported to the police who then got a warrant to raid the business and the homes of the employees on the complaint of the subject of the story.

Legal?  I'm sure the i's were dotted and the t's were crossed.  Suspicious?  Yep.  At least to me.

This article, if true, doesn't really help the cause of it not be at least a little bit shady

They did write the story but decided to not publish it, doesn't mean they couldn't have published it at a later time.
No idea the reasoning why they didn't, no reason given so we are left to speculate and i think they figured out that they were in the wrong in how they  planned to use that info about the restaurant owner's person driving record.


To me it's all a bunch of petty small town bullshit. Someone offended someone and in turn the other escalated it turning it into a vicious cycle, and now the media is trying to hide behind the laws to justify their unethical behavior.

[GMDino]

(08-29-2023, 10:25 AM)Mike M (the other one) Wrote: So are you saying that it's ok for the media to obtain someone's personal records and then violate the laws by using it in the way it wasn't allowed to be used (sending a copy of those personal records to the Council to block her business from getting an alcohol license). That's the violation. 

I also pointed out how this particular newspaper attacked another business owner and put them out of business over something that was trivial (posed nude in a magazine years ago and then to keep repeating it, that's showing some animosity towards working tax paying citizens), and really wasn't necessary. I don't mind the media doing their jobs and reporting info, but when you weaponize it in such a way, then you've crossed a line and the protections should no longer apply. Or do you feel otherwise? 

How about the part where the media person told the owner that they would own the restaurant soon? I didn't realize the media could make those kinds of threats.

Anyways, the way i see it (and this is my opinion) is that they have been overstepping their boundaries and going into the legal grey area's.

They did write the story but decided to not publish it, doesn't mean they couldn't have published it at a later time.
No idea the reasoning why they didn't, no reason given so we are left to speculate and i think they figured out that they were in the wrong in how they  planned to use that info about the restaurant owner's person driving record.

The paper did not send anything to the council. It's in the original story. They got a tip, followed up on it, but thought it was suspicious so they notified the police. The police told the subject and she made it public at a council meeting. The paper then ran a story defending themselves for NOT running the story and how the subject was the one who made everything publicly known. Everything you wrote above that "we don't know" or "no reason is given" was explained in the first story.

(08-29-2023, 10:25 AM)Mike M (the other one) Wrote: To me it's all a bunch of petty small town bullshit. Someone offended someone and in turn the other escalated it turning it into a vicious cycle, and now the media is trying to hide behind the laws to justify their unethical behavior.

Technically the subject of the story and the police are "hiding behind the law" saying everything was "legal" even though many feel they violated laws protecting the press.