Miami Herald Drops the Ball; Police Department Caught LYING. UPDATED Nov 16

Well, the Miami Herald screwed the pooch, big time.

Jeff Weinsier was arrested Tuesday outside an area High School. And that's about the only fact that the Herald got right.

It starts with the sensationalistic headline:

"TV reporter carrying gun at school is arrested"

I have a couple of problems with this headline: first, Weinsier was in front of the school, not AT it. Second, it implies that the gun was a factor in the arrest; and it was not.

How can I know this? I've seen the video tape; the raw, unedited tape that shows the entire incident right up to Weinsier's arrest.

Go and watch the tape, then continue reading.

All right? Up to speed? Let's dissect the article:

WPLG-ABC 10 reporter Jeffrey Weinsier, a loaded .38 revolver tucked in his waistband, was arrested Tuesday at Miami Central High after he was repeatedly warned against trespassing on school property, police said.

First, he wasn't warned about trespassing, because he wasn't trespassing. He was on a sidewalk. He was ordered to move across the street. No reason given. After he was taken into custody, it was revealed that he was indeed carrying a concealed weapon - and a concealed weapon permit. More on the gun later.

Weinsier, 40, was charged with trespassing on school property with a weapon, possession of a firearm on school grounds and resisting officers without violence.

Other reporters had been at the school to report the story of a Central High School math teacher who was arrested for attacking Homestead Air Reserve Base in a failed ''suicide-by-cop'' attempt.

All this is true. Of course, he wasn't on school grounds at the time, so that charge is bogus, but that's what he was charged with. Moving on.

Schools police say Weinsier -- an investigative reporter -- repeatedly ignored warnings to not step on the school's grass, said Detective Ed Torrens, a spokesman.

and further down:

Torrens said he believed other TV stations' cameramen only filmed Weinsier being arrested on the sidewalk, but failed to show footage of him stepping on the grass.

As we see in the video, at no time was Weinsier on the grass: in fact, it would be impossible for him to get on the grass without climbing a pretty thick hedge, first. He wasn't on the grass when the cops approached him, and he wasn't on the grass when they finally arrested him.

And if, as the Police Department claims, he was standing on the grass, why didn't the police tell him that's why he was being asked to move across the street? Weinsier asked for a reason; the cops refused to give one. At no time did they cops say "we saw you on the grass, that's trespassing." Not once did they say that; all they would repeat is "We kindly ask that you move across the street!"

Weinsier was clearly on a public sidewalk, he clearly wasn't on the grass when the police asked him to leave, and he clearly wasn't on the grass when they arrested him.

No, he was on a sidewalk. And in fact, he was on a side walk full of PEOPLE. Hundreds of people, and only one person was arrested: the TV reporter.

And do you know what? Weinsier DID cross the street. It was after the cops demanded that his camera man turn off the camera. The cops are filmed grabbing the camera, and taking Weinsier's microphone away. The camerman starts moving across the street, and Weinsier points to the mic and says "You need to give that back. The cop does so, and Weinsier and his crew move across the street. We can hear Weinsier call the station while the camera rolls tape of the school letting out.

A few minutes later, Weinsier and the camera head back across the street, having been in contact with their station and the school's Public Information Officer. Again, the cops intercept him and tell him he must go across the street. Weinsier reports that his station manager just confirmed with Police Information Officer Ed Torrans that the crew could be on the sidewalk.

Weinsier:
We just spoke to your public information officer, he says that we can be here. It's all right for us to be here..

Fat Cop:
My sargent is going to be here in a moment...you just

Weinsier:
your officer, Ed Goren, said that we could...

Fat Cop:
I don't know any Ed Goran, Ed Goran's not the public information officer..

Weinsier:
Yes, he is

Fat Cop:
...our p.i.o. is Ed TORRAN-

Weinsier:
yeah, THAT guy.

The cops start pushing Weinsier, telling him that he has to go across the street. The reporter told the cops to stop touching him, that they didn't have the right to touch him and push him around.

Weinsier:
You do realize, the camera's getting all of this.

Fat Cop:
do you know what Custodial touch is? I don't care about cameras, custodial custody, I can get you off my block if I want. ....I am telling you, ON THAT CAMERA, YOU are within 500 feet of a school, and I am giving you a lawful order to get off this sidewalk.

After FatCop blathers on for a few more minutes, Weinsier flatly states "I am not going." And the cops arrest him at that point.

Again, I must point out that at no time did the cop mention grass, or standing on it. He said a lot of other stuff; why not "Hey, you were on the grass, and that's trespassing!"

The only reason I can think of is that it was because Weinsier was never on the grass at all. Makes sense, doesn't it? None of the evidence puts him on the grass, so he wasn't on it. So much for the 'grass story.'

Now, about the gun: Weinsier had a carry permit. He got it after getting death threats in the aftermath of a story he covered earlier this year.

So what does the Herald say about it?

Weinsier holds a concealed weapons permit, but state law prohibits anyone from carrying a gun on school grounds, Torrens said.

''Miami-Dade Schools Police is a very effective force and they take any incident of anyone bringing a weapon to campus seriously,'' said Miami-Dade schools spokesman John Schuster.

Let's get back to the tape, because this is a serious charge: hmm, no, Weinsier was never on School Property at any time. Funny, the Herald doesn't point that out. You know what else we never see? The gun. We never see it, and the cops never once mention it.

No, instead of addressing the facts, they quote Schuster. And THAT quote makes it look like the School Cops caught Weinsier bringing a gun onto school grounds; neither of which is true: he wasn't on school grounds, and they didn't take him into custody because of the gun. The FACT is that they only found the gun AFTER they arrested him.

The Herald has been unforgivably sloppy with their work on this story. Frankly, I think it borders on slander.

And the cops? Wayyyy out of line.

*******************************************************************
A late update; all charges agains Weinsier were dismissed. Assistant State AttorneyMaggie Gerson reached the same conclusion as I did, upon viewing the tape.

"...due to the fact that the defendant was not on school property, it cannot be said that the defendant was trespassing. Since the defendant was not trespassing, anything that was found after he was arrested will be suppressed as a matter of law."

She also waved off a bunch of lesser charges the school cops had laid on Weinsier; since the orders he was given to go across the street were not lawful, he can't be charged with failure to obey a lawful order. The sidewalk isn't school property, and even though it's in the 500 foot safety zone, Weinsier had a legitimate reason to be inside of it. And even if the school police HAD a reason to keep him across the street (which they didn't), the fact that they weren't keeping EVERYONE across the street negates their action. Most damning: school had been dismissed by the time the cop illegally arrested Weinsier.

No mention in the Herald's coverage of this action about the "facts" they reported earlier.

I made the paper!

My letter concerning Book Banning and the Miami School board was published in today's Miami Herald. It doesn't appear to be in the online version.

Rural Georgia outshines Metro Miami.

The good news is that not all elected officials are as idiotic as our own school board.

In a recent court decision, the judge ruled against a mother who had been crusading to have the HARRY POTTER books removed from school libraries.

So what's her beef? (don't be eating when you read this next sentence!)

"Harry Potter is a terrorist threat, for the spells in the books are speical codes for terrorist groups in the middle east. The characters represent well known terrorist who have attack our borders. This is why we should ban these books from our schools."

That's right; Laura Mallory (MySpace page) not only believes that the series of books about a young wizard coming of age are evil; she believes that J.K. Rowling is in league with Al Queda.

Perhaps our school board simply believes that Castro is far more dangerous than Osama Bin Laden et al, but I think that rational thinking has more to do with the complete lack of support Mallory is finding.

The position of the school board, as outlined by their attorney, Victoria Sweeny:
"This case is a very simple one," Sweeny said, accusing Mallory of trying "to censor materials that are rightfully in the public libraries of this county."

Sweeny went on to say "... we urge the court to heed the words of Thomas Jefferson, who admonished that freedom of speech cannot be limited without being lost."

Hey, Miami-Dade School Board, see that? YOU ARE SUPPOSED TO FIGHT CENSORSHIP, NOT SUPPORT IT!

And further, according to Sweeny: "This was not just an issue about one book. This was actually a First Amendment issue... These books have been in our public school libraries, and will continue to be in our public school libraries"

Imagine that... a school board that actually fights to KEEP books in the library. All we have to do is NOT re-elect ANY of the bozos on our current board, and we could have school board that makes us proud.

(And have you noticed that no one trying to ban VAMOS A CUBA has quoted anyone who signed the Declaration of Independence? I guess it's hard to find a quote from Jefferson that is in favor of something he and the rest of our founding fathers abhorred so much.)

BANNING BOOKS IS BAD, a primer for the Miami-Dade School Board.

The gang of drooling morons that comprise our school board are once again championing a cause that's a loser in every sense of the word. Most of us remember the flack they got LAST year over their attempts to ban the book "VAMOS A CUBA."

For those who are not familiar with this book, it is one of a series of books about children growing up in different culture around the world. The basic message is that even though people in other cultures have seemingly very different lifestyles, they really have the same core values. Each volume deals with single culture, and uses idealized archetypes to demonstrate how the cultures can be superficially different, but fundamentally the same. It's intended for elementary level readers.

Last year, some Cuban-American parents protested this book's presence in school libraries. Their complaint: while the books accurately described aspects of Cuban culture, it failed to mention that Cuba's government is an oppressive dictatorship that strips its citizens of many basic human rights.

And that is true; it doesn't mention such details. Just as the book on the Swahili children didn't mention that for years their tribe and others were hunted down and enslaved, and in many places only recently gained basic human rights, and just as the book on American kids didn't mention that our culture basically wiped out the one that USED to live on our lands. These books aren't intended to to explain those aspects of geography.

This misguided board apparently believes that Truth can only be arrive at if it is fully spelled out in every document we have access to. The board's demand is tantamount to banning The Bible because it doesn't mention that the universe is millions of years old and that all life on the planet evolved from earlier forms.

No, VAMOS A CUBA doens't mention dictatorships, or human rights, quantum physics, torte law, and thousands of other worthy topics. It's aimed at eight year olds.

There are arguments back and forth over whether or not the School Board has the legal authority to trample the First Ammendment. Excuses are being tossed about, arguing about curricula, decency, political indoctrination blah blah blah.

The point being missed by the School Board, and according to reports, the court reviewing the case is that WE ARE TALKING ABOUT BANNING BOOKS.

Book banning is simply WRONG. I don't care if this is a case where it can be twisted into being legal: IT IS WRONG TO BAN BOOKS.

Here, I'll use a sentence that even the morons on the School Board can understand:
BANNING BOOKS IS BAD, AND IT'S UN-AMERICAN.

In a free society, we must be able to express differing viewpoints. Some viewpoints will contradict each other. Some will be based on false information or faulty reasoning. Some will be based on fact and solid logic. But there is only one way we can sort it out, and that's by allowing the viewpoints to be expressed, and to be scrutinized and judged on their merits.

VAMOS A CUBA is certainly viewing Cuba through rose-colored-glasses, idealizing the positives and ignoring the negatives. So did my High School US History book. So does most literature we give our students.

That History Book was never banned. It never mentioned that our European ancestors broke faith with the Native Americans, over and over again. It never mentioned that 98% of the Native American population was wiped out by diseases the Europeans brought with them, and that THAT is the reason the land looked empty and unused to the first European settlers. It told us that General Custer was ruthlessly massacred at Little Big Horn: it didn't mention that he and his troops had massacred an undefended village of women and children.

But if that is the history book used in my school, how can I know about its inaccuracies? Because I read OTHER books. Books written specifically to correct what our schools had been teaching. In many cases, those NEW books are now being used instead of the old ones. But the old ones remain; so we can see the truth of the claims made about their mis-statements and fallacies.

VAMOS A CUBA doesn't mention the dictatorship or the harsh conditions: but it presents us with the opportunity to discuss those things. And THAT is why this book should remain on the shelves of our school libraries, along with books that tell about how Castro took over Cuba, and about what that has meant for the Cubans that stayed AND the Cubans that left.

You don't defend the truth by hiding lies and inaccuracies: you have to hold those lies and inaccuracies up to the light, so we can see them for what they are. Leave VAMOS A CUBA on the bookshelves, and the First Amendment intact.