This comment was removed by the site staff for violation of the usage agreement.
March 19, 2009 at 10:50 p.m.
Education_Voter, I'm not intimidating Mr. Sweetwood at all. A newspaper should report NEWS, not create it. Do you disagree with that? Isn't this entire thread about people owning up to their mistakes and being held responsible for them? He interjected himself into this thread as the Managing Editor and I called him out on something contained in the article that was, and nearly three days later still is, 100% false. Not one of those juveniles has been charged with anything. Where is he now?
I'd welcome him to tell me that I'm wrong, but he can't. It doesn't make him a bad guy or a horrible Managing Editor and he didn't disgrace his parents. He made a mistake, or at the very least allowed a mistake to occur by failing to properly manage and edit the story. Is it only The Vindy and Mr. Sweetwood that can't be held accountable for their mistakes and poor judgment?
March 19, 2009 at 10:34 p.m.
I think you're right. I might be the only one concerned with the truth. STILL NO JUVI CHARGES FILED = FALSE STATEMENT MADE WITH ACTUAL MALICE. Does the term 'actual malice' ring any bells, Mr. Sweetwood?
March 19, 2009 at 6:48 p.m.
As the Managing Editor, can you please explain why an article printed during the early morning hours of March 18th would state that 4 juveniles were charged when no charges of any kind have been filed against any of them? Inexusable."
Over 12 hours later and no response from Mr. Sweetwood? What happened, did he suddenly stop reading these posts or is he trying to figure out how his paper reported something entirely fictional as "fact"?
March 19, 2009 at 11:21 a.m.
Not only do we have the "missing minute", which someone explained as a feature of a camera operated by motion sensor, but has anyone else noticed that the VIDEO SKIPS FROM 50:12 TO 50:19 even though there are people and a cat walking and moving around? There's blame all around in this entire incident, but the fact that this video clearly was edited prior to it being given to the police raises my suspicions about what REALLY happened.
March 18, 2009 at 10:40 p.m.
As the Managing Editor, can you please explain why an article printed during the early morning hours of March 18th would state that 4 juveniles were charged when no charges of any kind have been filed against any of them? Inexusable.
March 18, 2009 at 10:23 p.m.