Connecticut Elementary School Massacre

[Iamwhomiam]

First, I must say how very disappointed I am with Mac's attacking those he disagrees with regarding this photo of Adam. Its source is irrelevant. It might have come from his uncle or it might have been given to the police by his brother Ryan once they realized their tentative identification was wrong. It could have been sent by phone, fax or email to the police. To me it looks much like a photo one would have taken in a photo booth. The thumbnail on the Sandy Hook wiki page of Adam, the same as the one you've been questioning, looks not so bad as other copies so far presented. Hell, he could have had it in his wallet, right next to his brother's id.

Such a photo would never be used for any official identification purpose. A post-mortem photo of the deceased is what is usually used to identify the body. A relative's in-person viewing of the body for identification purposes, especially for one so accused, would not be allowed under any circumstance. I identified my son's body four days after his death from such a post mortem photograph.

The only photo I could supply the press with was one from his mother that was taken when he was 15. My photographs at the time were in storage. He was 32 years old. So things can most innocently get really screwed-up when people haven't their wits about them.

I was never contacted by the police. Immediately after learning what had happened, this now some 20 hours after it took place, I called the police seeking information about my son and was told a victim had my son's license in his pocket. As impossible as it was, I had some tiny bit of hope to cling to for a few days. While I read the ponderings of strangers online writing the most fantastic, untruthful and hurtful things.

c2w? wrote:
He has cause of action because Connecticut state officials decided to let him know his brother, mother and/or father were dead by wrongly naming him as the killer of 20 small children to (and also in front of) the whole damn world.

I would not want to be the one to bring that suit, because I doubt it would be successful. Proving the State is responsible for some AP report attributed to an "unidentified law enforcement official" will be next to impossible. Unless, that is, AP gives up their source and the name of the reporter reporting it.

Now that's where Ryan does have an easily winnable lawsuit; suing the AP, not the People of the State of Connecticut.

I have to tell you, some folks who've lost a loved one in such a grotesque event, like me, have been working the press to change their habits when covering such events. I was thrilled, well maybe not thrilled, but certainly thankful that law enforcement demanded the press keep their distance from victims. We do have a right to our privacy.

I'll try to locate a scathing post I submitted a few years ago to the Facebook page for the Dart Center for Journalism and Trauma that concerned an opinion piece, Don't Rush the Healing, written by Dave Cullen, a reporter who had covered Columbine for 10 years. It was originally published on AOL news on Jan 12, 2011 and the FB posting was entitled: The Meaning of Grief.

You might care to read these:

Aurora's Horror: Tips for Responsible Coverage

Small Town, Big Story: Lessons from the Front Lines

Connecticut State Police Press Releases

[compared2what?]

c2w? wrote:
He has cause of action because Connecticut state officials decided to let him know his brother, mother and/or father were dead by wrongly naming him as the killer of 20 small children to (and also in front of) the whole damn world.

I would not want to be the one to bring that suit, because I doubt it would be successful. Proving the State is responsible for some AP report attributed to an "unidentified law enforcement official" will be next to impossible. Unless, that is, AP gives up their source and the name of the reporter reporting it.

Pete Yost. It looked like they might have had a stringer in CT, too. But I think Pete Yost had a solo by-line on the story in question. He's a star, of sorts. Not a bad reporter, either.

Now that's where Ryan does have an easily winnable lawsuit; suing the AP, not the People of the State of Connecticut.

I understand that would usually be the case. But I don't think it is here. In fact, I'm sure it's not. For two reasons: (1) In light of the timing, his name has to have come from law enforcement; (2) that release is the tell that they're in very deep shit.

Also, AP is not going to go to the mat on this for the first-amendment thrill of the thing. They'd be taking a fall for getting burned. That's no way to run a business.

So I think the state will settle.
______________

ON EDIT: Plus the enormity of the error does kind of alter the equation. If it were a smaller thing, maybe AP would be more obliging. But they were out there yammering to the press and naming the wrong suspect (thought to be deceased) before contacting his family, ffs. And very self-evidently so.

Also, he might have been killed. And blah, blah, blah. It's not going to be pennies.

[compared2what?]

Now that's where Ryan does have an easily winnable lawsuit; suing the AP, not the People of the State of Connecticut.

Wait. I don't think I do understand that would usually be the case, on consideration.

...

I think, although I'm not certain, that AP is actually completely in the clear. Due diligence. Assuming that Pete Yost was duly diligent. But I'd expect him to be.

IANAL, however. Or even really arguing. Just thinking aloud.

[compared2what?]

I identified my son's body four days after his death from such a post mortem photograph.

The only photo I could supply the press with was one from his mother that was taken when he was 15. My photographs at the time were in storage. He was 32 years old. So things can most innocently get really screwed-up when people haven't their wits about them.

I was never contacted by the police. Immediately after learning what had happened, this now some 20 hours after it took place, I called the police seeking information about my son and was told a victim had my son's license in his pocket. As impossible as it was, I had some tiny bit of hope to cling to for a few days. While I read the ponderings of strangers online writing the most fantastic, untruthful and hurtful things.

I'm sorry.

[lupercal]

I'm sorry.

So am I. It's always good to get your perspective on these insane events IAWIA.
---------------------------------

Ryan. And it was actually only a couple of hours. By 3 pm on the 14th, Ryan had been cleared, and Adam was named the shooter.

and if it was a hoax, why would they make that mistake?

Good question, I've also been wondering. Those couple of hours were enough to make the entire world aware of Ryan, his location, education, profession, facebook account and anything else anyone would like to know. In other words, destroyed his reputation and probably current employment if not career. Their father was similarly Google mapped, flayed and displayed for all the world to hurl rotten vegetables at. The effect, combined with the demonization of mother and son, was to publicly destroy the entire family.

Object lesson, perhaps? That would explain the silence of those well-placed Lanza kin along with anyone impolitic enough to wonder aloud how this tale could possibly be true (James Tracy is probably also out of a job). Considering Lieberman's retirement the same week (two Liebermans actually, but just focusing on the CT senator and DHS wheel) the Lanza wipeout could have been a signal to his CT client network that their day has passed.

[MacCruiskeen]

This article describes the huge police operation, not just in, but around the apartment block in Hoboken NJ where Ryan Lanza lived, 78 miles from the scene of the crime (where a gunman lay dead among his victims. The police closed down the building, and the streets surrounding the building. At least one man was ordered to the ground by police on the street, then taken to a police car. As the attached one-minute video demonstrates, the operation clearly went on all day and into the night.

Rumors fly in Hoboken about brother of suspected Connecticut school shooter

By Star-Ledger Staff
on December 14, 2012 at 11:34 PM, updated December 15, 2012 at 12:52 PM

[...]

Ryan Lanza told Brett Wilshe, a former staff writer at the Jersey Journal, a sister paper to The Star-Ledger, that the shooter might have had his ID.

http://www.nj.com/news/index.ssf/2012/1 ... en_bu.html

"Might have had." Presumably Ryan Lanza was speaking to this reporter after being interviewed (and cleared) by the police. Couldn't they tell him for sure whether Adam was or wasn't carrying that ID? After all, it was their only reason for arresting a live, innocent man, arresting at least two other people believed to be his roommates, and shutting down the entire street, 78 miles from the scene of the crime where a gunman lay dead.

Standing in the doorway of her third-floor apartment at the sprawling "Metropolitan" building between Grand and Clinton streets — in a section across from where Ryan Lanza reportedly lived with two roommates — 27-year-old -year-old Katelyn Powers in the late afternoon summed up her day like this:

"We've heard like 10 different stories. We've heard that there was a dead father (of Adam Lanza) across the street — that there was a dead brother across the street. We heard that the girlfriend, that they were trying to track her down and that she could possibly be in Hoboken."

http://www.nj.com/news/index.ssf/2012/1 ... en_bu.html

Maybe she was just mishearing an already garbled account. But why does this "dead father" keep cropping up?

I would be very happy to drop this entire terrible topic, but the whole damn story makes so little sense.

[barracuda]

This article describes the huge police operation, not just in, but around the apartment block in Hoboken NJ where Ryan Lanza lived, 78 miles from the scene of the crime (where a gunman lay dead among his victims. The police closed down the building, and the streets surrounding the building. At least one man was ordered to the ground by police on the street, then taken to a police car. As the attached one-minute video demonstrates, the operation clearly went on all day and into the night.

Not like that's a bad thing. And the video demonstrates a clear federal law enforcement presence in the form of the FBI.

"Might have had." Presumably Ryan Lanza was speaking to this reporter after being interviewed (and cleared) by the police. Couldn't they tell him for sure whether Adam was or wasn't carrying that ID? After all, it was their only reason for arresting a live, innocent man, arresting at least two other people believed to be his roommates, and shutting down the entire street, 78 miles from the scene of the crime where a gunman lay dead.

My understanding is that he was not arrested, but was brought in for questioning. And I don't think police routinely release information regarding an ongoing investigation to people they are questioning involving the crime they are investigating. I'm rather certain that's a standard and sensible practice.

Rumor and innuendo fueled by often false social media and news reports ran like wildfire on smartphones, laptops and in hallway conversations — and residents reacted to each new ripple of news in turn.

Yep. And I really enjoy this quote:

Police talked with the girlfriend and located the friend in California, which took some time, a law enforcement official said.

"Which took some time."

[MacCruiskeen]

IAWIA, I am very sorry for your terrible loss. That's the first thing I want to say to you. I am a father myself and I can only imagine what that must feel like, although I'd rather not even begin to imagine it.

I have to reply to your first paragraph, because you name me in it:

First, I must say how very disappointed I am with Mac's attacking those he disagrees with regarding this photo of Adam.

In fact I didn't attack anyone for disagreeing me with about anything. I lost my temper with barracuda alone -- which I regret and for which I hereby apologise -- not because he was disagreeing with me about the photo or about anything else, but because of his attititude and tone throughout much of the thread up to that point. I like barracuda and am glad to hear he likes me too. And I am sorry I swore at him.

I was angry at c2w for reasons I explained in the context, and I feel no need to apologise for anything I said to her in that context, which really speaks for itself. I did not "attack" her or even swear at her at her any point, and our dispute had absolutely nothing to do with the photo. Fwiw, I also like c2w and have a lot of respect for most of what she posts.

About that photo, you write:

Its source is irrelevant.

I have to disagree. That photo serves to identify the alleged killer, and it is also his "iconic" posthumous public face, his "image" worldwide. So clearly it matters where it came from. As I've said repeatedly: I would be very happy to see the issue of its orgins cleared up immediately. I wish it had been clear from the start, and I don't understand why it isn't. But I'm sorry, it does matter. Because we live in an age of Spectacle, where images are frequently manipulated and used to manipulate people, often in very bad ways. That's why it matters.

Again, I sympathise with your loss, and I appreciate the effort it must have taken to describe on a public forum your experiences in providing photographic ID of your son to the police. But, in the first place, I have absolute no reason to distrust your account of that experience, or the authenticity of the ID you provided. My distrust of the police and the media is another matter entirely. There, I do have reasons, as we all do. In the second place, you were the parent of a crime victim and not of a perpetrator. That is a substantial difference, and it creates a substantially different situation.

With respect, and with best wishes.

[compared2what?]

My understanding is that he was not arrested, but was brought in for questioning.

They would certainly have wanted to talk to him anyway. However, there might have been a touch of "When it comes to bringing someone in for questioning right after you've accidentally and erroneously exposed him to what might be described as the sheer mindless rage of several dozen recently bereaved parents who have just lost their children to violence, there's no time like the present" thinking going on there, too.

Effectively protective custody without admission of need for same, IOW.

[barracuda]

Yes.

And my money is down that right here...

Earlier in the day, Hoboken police took into custody two people they believed were Ryan Lanza’s roommate, a police spokesman said.

"Those roommates are in our custody so we can talk to them," Capt. James Fitzsimmons said. "There is no indication that they had any involvement in the incident."

...is where the missing girls became a thing.

[compared2what?]

I was angry at c2w for reasons I explained in the context, and I feel no need to apologise for anything I said to her in that context, which really speaks for itself. I did not "attack" her or even swear her at her any point, and our dispute had absolutely nothing to do with the photo. Fwiw, I also like c2w and have a lot of respect for most of what she posts.

I'm willing to let it go, out of love. But if I may say so gently, you misunderstood what I was clearly saying about who Pete Yost was to a much greater extent than I think you would have had you not already been angry, in view of your usually impressive capacity for understanding.

To a great enough extent that I thought you were doing it on purpose, actually. That's why I treated it as an attack.

Anyway. I guess that just demonstrates that misunderstandings happen, at most.

Please don't apologize if you're not sorry. Nothing but love on this end.

[compared2what?]

Uh, i seem to be getting drawn in to this mess. Just a couple of quickies here.

Re: Defamation of Ryan - Accusing a person falsely of committing a crime is libel or slander "per se." Haven't studied the law of defamation in a while. Not meant as legal advice. Other examples of slander per se are false statements that the person has a "loathsome disease," or is unchaste.

Ryan may also have causes of action based on false light, or invasion of privacy.

Re: Family being well known to police - then WHY are so many facts WRONG?

I've gone back to being not sure it was defamation, except meaning it this time. Meaning, for example, that I'm really not sure.

The problem is basically that you can't defame the dead, which would completely inure AP, assuming Yost got it from a genuine reliable source (ie -- a law enforcement official he reasonably presumed to be in a position to know) who also told him Ryan Lanza was dead. And I think that operating under that assumption at least sorta-kinda mitigate the actions of the leaking officials for defamation purposes. Maybe more than kinda-sorta.

My best guess is that it would be what I really wish everyone would start calling a Tort of Outrage. Because I like the phrase and want to invent a dessert named after it. But it's usually referred to as Intentional Infliction of Emotional Distress. Or "Negligent," sometimes. I'd imagine that this was probably bad enough to count as intentional though, on should-have-known-better grounds.

Tort law is mostly a mystery to me, however.

[barracuda]

I don't have any doubt that Ryan was defamed in practical terms, and suffered great distress from the reports of his name as that of the killer. He is now infamous, and almost certainly being actively pursued by crazed "Hooker" zombies at this very moment. But as far as winning a case, I'd say he has no chance. There was likely no malice, no mens rea, and maybe even no fault on the part of the police. He actually and truely was considered the suspect, it seems, and as you say, was presumed deceased.

His only recourse is the talk show circuit, and he'd better get on that before the shine wears off because the odds of any kind of a payday diminish geometrically with each passing day.

[MacCruiskeen]

One thing's for sure, this "anonymous-law-enforcement-official-speaking-off-the-record" crap needs to end. It's not just disastrous for the people involved in this particularly repulsive case, it's endemic throughout the US media.

And there's a very simple way to end it: Make it illegal for the media to do it. Not that this will ever happen, of course. Both the government and the media have strong vested interests in keeping the population routinely confused, unsettled and misinformed.

Homeland Insecurity.

[compared2what?]

I don't have any doubt that Ryan was defamed and suffered distress from the reports of his name as that of the killer. He is now infamous, and almost certainly being actively pursued by crazed "Hooker" zombies at this very moment. But as far as winning a case, I'd say he has no chance. There was no malice, no mens rea, and maybe even no fault on the part of the police. He actually and truely was considered the suspect, it seems, and as you say, was presumed deceased.

His only recourse is the talk show circuit, and he'd better get on that before the shine wears off because the odds of any kind of a payday diminish geometrically with each passing day.

Mens rea is criminal law. So it's a non-issue wrt whether he has a cause of action.

I'm not speaking casually or colloquially when I say you can't defame the dead. You can't. Legal impossibility. So not only do I have some doubt as to whether he was defamed by the media who reported that the killer was called that while under the impression that the killer was, per reliable sources, dead, I am 100 percent positive that he wasn't. I don't know whether that would apply to the cops and other authorities who named him while under the same impression. But it's some kind of excuse, at least.

Malice (actually malicious intent) isn't literally a necessary element of defamation, which is, btw, the one and only tort I know anything about. It's too hard to prove. And extremely easy to conceal when present. That's why reckless disregard for the truth does the job just as well. Conduct counts for a lot more than intention, essentially.

There was fault on the part of the police and other officials beyond fucking doubt. Are you kidding?

They're not supposed to name suspects publicly before they've even finished processing the crime scene when it doesn't serve any professional, public or legal purpse, such as -- for example -- when those suspects are too fucking dead to pose a threat to public safety.

They're also not supposed to go around letting families know their 20-something-year-old sons are dead by leaking that information very sensationalistically to the press for no earthly goddamn reason that protects or serves public interest at all. That's not what people pay taxes for. And even if they thought that Ryan, Nancy and Peter Lanza were dead, they still would have been one family member short of comporting themselves decently. If you think about it for a moment. So it's pretty clear that they simply didn't give a fuck.

Intentional Infliction of Emotional Distress is:


* Extreme or outrageous conduct that
* Intentionally or recklessly causes
* Severe emotional distress (and possible also bodily harm)

_____________________

I think Ryan Lanza has a pretty good case.

_____________________

ON EDIT: It kind of goes without saying that they're also not supposed to name suspects without, you know, doing a little something to ascertain that's what they're doing. And reading the name on an ID does not count as "a little something." For precisely the reasons so very well illustrated by this case. Anyone can walk around with an ID.

Again: Not what the taxpayers are ponying up for.