I imagine that "innocent" in the general sense was meant there, as in they didn't do it as opposed to "not guilty" in the courtroom/legal rights sense.Please explain. You can't be guilty until you're charged, tried and found guilty. Until then, you are innocent. That's how the justice system is set up for criminal cases in both Canada and the United States. "Innocent until proven guilty".
Maybe there's some twisted logic I'm not getting here...
Got a tip for us?
Let us know
Become a MacRumors Supporter for $50/year with no ads, ability to filter front page stories, and private forums.
Gizmodo Cleared as Charges Finally Brought in Lost Prototype iPhone 4 Case
- Thread starter MacRumors
- Start date
- Sort by reaction score
They are clearly guilty of accepting stolen property but apparently now even bloggers are "journalists" so they get off the hook because of "freedom of the press" which apparently allows you to commit crimes and get away with them.Will all the people who said that Jason Chen and Gizmodo were "clearly guilty of theft under California law" please come forward and apologize for name calling and insulting the few of us who said "innocent until proven guilty" now ?
I can dream can I ?
Stuff like this ends up hurting real journalism in the long run as people end up losing respect for the press in general because of irresponsible and unprofessional bloggers like Gawker media. It also potentially endangers the protections that the press now enjoy.
Blogs are not news. They regurgitate rumours and news gathered by legitimate news organizations.
Please explain. You can't be guilty until you're charged, tried and found guilty. Until then, you are innocent. That's how the justice system is set up for criminal cases in both Canada and the United States. "Innocent until proven guilty".
Maybe there's some twisted logic I'm not getting here...
Difference between legally guilty and factually guilty. You can commit a crime and not be convicted, then you are legally innocent while factually guilty.
Doesn't really apply in this case. If their actions were criminal, there would have been charges laid. They admitted to all of their actions. They recorded and documented their actions. If those actions were criminal then it would have been an easy case. The DA would simply have to show the actions were crimes and they let Giz admit to those action. The fact that the DA did not press charges, specifically because of the mountain of evidence that Giz committed the actions, shows that the DA did not feel those actions were criminal, i.e. innocent.
Link to verdict ?
Where are these "facts" in this case (I know you're kinda supporting me with that other paragraph, I'm just trying to establish something here for the naysayer crowd that still wants to shout "GUILTY!") ?
There was national concern over what this particular case might do to shield laws had it been appealed to DC. That might have entered into the reasoning for not charging. Or, maybe the DA thought it'd be better (and a budget saver for the DA office) if Apple just sued them out of existence. I dunno.
So if you lose your car keys and I find them and take your car, I didn't steal your car because you were irresponsible and lost it?
As stated before, taking the phone isn't stealing necessarily. But, the person finding it didn't go through any reasonable steps to return the phone. He knew who owned it, went into the guys Facebook profile, Apple's campus being right down the street from the bar, etc. He had means to return it. He didn't contact the police or leave his info with the manager of the bar. He made one lame attempt in calling AppleCare who wouldn't know anything about it or what to do and then sold it. After failing at making a reasonable attempt to return the prototype and then selling it, it became selling stolen property.
But, hey, here's a question for all you "duh, if the guys stole da phone, and Gizmodo bought da phone, dey bought stolen goods!" herp derpers:
What if the guys who are being charged with theft of the device told Gizmodo that they found the device, and Gizmodo genuinely believed that?
What if the very clever Gizmodo legal guys made the perps sign a piece of paper saying that they definitely found the phone, and didn't steal it? Which I'm sure would be a standard part of any contract when paying a source for something like this, no?
If that's the case, they're not guilty of anything except possession of stolen goods, which, if I remember rightly, they returned to the owner, no?
There's not a judge in his or her right mind who's going to prosecute for being in possession of stolen goods when they potentially have a cast iron defence to show they were misled. No?
What if the guys who are being charged with theft of the device told Gizmodo that they found the device, and Gizmodo genuinely believed that?
What if the very clever Gizmodo legal guys made the perps sign a piece of paper saying that they definitely found the phone, and didn't steal it? Which I'm sure would be a standard part of any contract when paying a source for something like this, no?
If that's the case, they're not guilty of anything except possession of stolen goods, which, if I remember rightly, they returned to the owner, no?
There's not a judge in his or her right mind who's going to prosecute for being in possession of stolen goods when they potentially have a cast iron defence to show they were misled. No?
Selling something before it legally become yours is defined as theft in California's laws. A lot of people disagree, but us Golden Staters have to toe that line if we want to avoid the poe-leese.
He must have had botox...every photo I have seen of him has exactly the same facial expression....like the actor Roger Moore
Two people were charged
Chen and/or Gizmodo were not. Well, they do have a certain protection from the first amendment. However, their penalty was to pay lawyers and submit all evidence the prosecution requested. The people who actually did the deed were charged.
Some people thought that this was clearly NOT a crime, and they, apparently, were wrong. It was, however, shameless tabloid click-whoring, taking the risk that they could be fined heavily and their reporter would land in jail not for a principle but for clicks.
Chen and/or Gizmodo were not. Well, they do have a certain protection from the first amendment. However, their penalty was to pay lawyers and submit all evidence the prosecution requested. The people who actually did the deed were charged.
Some people thought that this was clearly NOT a crime, and they, apparently, were wrong. It was, however, shameless tabloid click-whoring, taking the risk that they could be fined heavily and their reporter would land in jail not for a principle but for clicks.
The 'facts' would be the Giz posted stories and videos, where they describe and admit to buying the phone. Those facts are really not in dispute.
They only question then is whether those acts were criminal.
Completely different laws around auto theft and lost property. A vehicle is not considered lost because you park it on the street, so removing it is considered theft. Lost property (not cars) is lost property and falls under those statutes.
Ok fine. He lost his keys and I found them. Despite knowing whose keys it was and everything, I didn't do any reasonable attempt to return the keys to the proper owner and I sold the keys to someone.
That isn't stealing?
I know there are different laws pertaining to auto theft and lost property. I didn't say the analogy was perfect.....
If you buy goods you don't know someone has ownership of, you're guilty of theft. In this case, it was obvious that these guys did not own the prototype. Gizmodo escaped because of their total cooperation and the fact that they did, eventually, give the phone back.
Please explain. You can't be guilty until you're charged, tried and found guilty. Until then, you are innocent. That's how the justice system is set up for criminal cases in both Canada and the United States. "Innocent until proven guilty".
Maybe there's some twisted logic I'm not getting here...
Innocent? Nobody can accuse a British-owned tabloid website of being "innocent". I'd say, "not charged so they'd be cooperative about ratting on the kids who gave them their biggest story of the year."
This mentality is ridiculous. The only time this concept applies is when you're talking about a situation where the other person involved was supposedly your friend and you both were otherwise relatively innocent. None of that applies here. This was a case where they were talking about real criminal offenses, with the possibility of real prison, between people who were not friends, and who were both involved in the same dirty deed. So even if he gave the names up to try and get a better deal for himself (which is probably not the case due to the cops seizing and looking through his computer) "throwing someone under the bus" wouldn't apply here.
Reasonable attempt is your own opinion.
Again, here in Canada, you're innocent until proven guilty. When was this tabloid proven guilty ?
I called the manufacture of the car and asked who owned them and if they could either return it or give me their contact info so I could return it.
There I thought was reasonable. I can now legally sell the keys?
Why do people care so bad that jason was not found guilty.
While i enjoy my apple products, i'll still root for the little guy, even if he did something a little mischievous, albeit no one was harmed/injured/hurt/dead. And before someone says gawker media isn't that little, its much smaller then apple.
He found a phone and got the site popular off of it. No one was killed like in China. The phone sells like hotcakes STILL. Probably got more popular from all the free press. And, its just a phone. Going to jail over buy a phone, stolen or not there are so much more things to worry about. California jails cant even house anymore inmates. Sue over what? Crazy profits?
While i enjoy my apple products, i'll still root for the little guy, even if he did something a little mischievous, albeit no one was harmed/injured/hurt/dead. And before someone says gawker media isn't that little, its much smaller then apple.
He found a phone and got the site popular off of it. No one was killed like in China. The phone sells like hotcakes STILL. Probably got more popular from all the free press. And, its just a phone. Going to jail over buy a phone, stolen or not there are so much more things to worry about. California jails cant even house anymore inmates. Sue over what? Crazy profits?
They never tried to intimidate Engadget even though they published pictures first:
http://www.engadget.com/2010/04/17/iphone-4g-is-this-it/