Results 1 to 10 of 10

Thread: Caught on Tape - TV Reporter Beaten

  1. #1
    You give Love..A BAD NAME
    Join Date
    Aug 2004
    Location
    Loveland
    Posts
    657

    Caught on Tape - TV Reporter Beaten

    http://cbs4boston.com/video/?id=23935@wbz.dayport.com

    (sorry, it may play a commercial in the beginning)

    Investigative reporter/attorney John Mattes of XETV in southern California was attacked in La Jolla on Tuesday by two of the subjects of one of his ongoing investigations. The incident was caught on tape.

    The journalist - known for his tenacity in tracking down cases of consumer fraud and deception - was working a story about stolen identities being used to purchase real estate when the attack occurred.

    The attackers - Sam Suleiman and his wife Rosa - had been making threats for weeks. The assault left the reporter bloody and beaten.

    Mattes was taken to the emergency room but was later released. Police were called to the scene and led the couple away in handcuffs.

  2. #2
    Working rage-aholic
    Join Date
    Jan 2006
    Location
    a rocky planet with one moon
    Posts
    863
    You know why they were being investigated by the journalists? They fraudulently buy real estate under the names and social security numbers of others, then collect the rent, while paying not a dime and running the properties into the ground.

    Apparently the cops weren't going after them, so journalists were. They retaliated like the criminals that they are.

    Anyone wonder why I've got a bent against cops? They'll taser you for a traffic violation or running your mouth, but if you ruin the credit and lives of dozens of people, this is what it takes to finally get arrested. And as the victim himself said, if it hadn't been videotaped, the charges probably wouldn't have even stuck. Investigation is apparently too much goddamn work for our boys in blue.
    Why are homely people discriminated against...we're the majority

  3. #3
    proud infidel
    Join Date
    Sep 2004
    Location
    from the civilized world
    Posts
    1,983
    Quote Originally Posted by Big Daddy Cool
    Why should the agressors worry about it? The law does little to deture this kind of criminality.
    I'm no expert in law, but my guess is they'll be charged with assault or aggravated assault causing bodily harm. I don't think we're talking misdemeanour crime here... Chances are these people will spend some time in jail.

    fml

  4. #4
    Registered User
    Join Date
    Jul 2006
    Location
    Toronto
    Posts
    446
    Usually when con artists are confronted with news cameras they respond violently

  5. #5
    Working rage-aholic
    Join Date
    Jan 2006
    Location
    a rocky planet with one moon
    Posts
    863
    I just watched the tape of this again, and heard some of this couple's history. Both of these animals should be locked away for a long time. I have little faith that they will be, but I can hope. The sad thing is, they've had trouble before, and nothing has been done.

    At the beginning of the tape, the bitch starts screaming "Why are you doing this?" over and over again. I scream at the TV, because you're criminals, and the cops haven't locked you up, so somebody has to do something.
    Right now this couple is out on bail, possibly threatening their tenants, which they have a history of, and living in a mansion overlooking the ocean.
    The worst part of all is, that had the cameraman rushed to the reporter's defense, instead of filming, nobody would have been charged.
    Why are homely people discriminated against...we're the majority

  6. #6
    Veteran of Misadventures
    Join Date
    Jul 2003
    Location
    U.S.A.
    Posts
    13,131
    Quote Originally Posted by btyger
    The worst part of all is, that had the cameraman rushed to the reporter's defense, instead of filming, nobody would have been charged.
    Very good point. It reminded me of a photo that might be of special interest to you. In the summer of 1985, there was an infamous front page NY Post photo of a Bronx Zoo zookeeper getting attacked by a tiger. She inadvertantly let the tiger out of its enclosure. I believe it was one of those big Bengal Tigers, which are not mellow tigers. Anyway, the photo was taken by someone on the other side of the fence and showed the tiger on its hind legs, with both of its paws on the front shoulders of the zoo keeper. Seconds after the photo was shot, the zoo keeper, a young woman just out of college as I recall, was mauled to death by that tiger.

    I always wondered, if instead of taking the photo he climbed the fence and threw the camera at the tiger, might it have created enough of a distraction to let the zoo keeper get to the fence and climb over? What had happened was that the zookeeper and her friend had seen the tiger and made a run for the fence. The friend made it and got over the fence, but the young zookeeper didn't make it and ended up being tiger meat.

    Getting back to this particular reporter who was attacked, he did a very poor job defending himself IMHO based on what I see on the tape.
    Last edited by EagerBeaver; 09-07-2006 at 12:50 PM.

  7. #7
    Working rage-aholic
    Join Date
    Jan 2006
    Location
    a rocky planet with one moon
    Posts
    863
    Yes, he did a poor job defending himself, but, I'm guessing there's a part of him that was hoping for this kind of outcome. If he'd showed up at trial unscathed, that wouldn't be very dramatic. His appearance combined with the video should doom the assailant come time for trial.

    And BDC, I know I unfairly target cops sometimes. They are just the underpaid enforcers. Our entire legal system is unwieldy and bureacratic, and it starts at the highest levels. For this reason, I find it hard to fault Bush for wanting to run the Guantanamo military tribunals his way. Is it perfect and fair? Probably not, but I don't want Mohammed and the other 13 getting out on a technicality, as criminals so often do.
    Last edited by btyger; 09-07-2006 at 07:39 PM.
    Why are homely people discriminated against...we're the majority

  8. #8
    proud infidel
    Join Date
    Sep 2004
    Location
    from the civilized world
    Posts
    1,983
    Quote Originally Posted by btyger
    The worst part of all is, that had the cameraman rushed to the reporter's defense, instead of filming, nobody would have been charged.
    Not sure Tyger. There were at least two witnesses to the assault: the guy who came to the victim's rescue and the person behind the camera. I think the assailants still could have gotten prosecuted, only had the guy filming intervened, the world wouldn't have been able to see with their own eyes the vicious assault.

    fml

  9. #9
    Wow...

    I must admit that I have a guilty pleasure watching 60 Minutes and other reporters going after scam artists, because when they get caught, they usually do something crazy like walk away, slam doors, etc.

    But I never expected them to physically attack the reporter. I guess we've reached a new low here.

  10. #10
    Veteran of Misadventures
    Join Date
    Jul 2003
    Location
    U.S.A.
    Posts
    13,131
    Quote Originally Posted by btyger
    The worst part of all is, that had the cameraman rushed to the reporter's defense, instead of filming, nobody would have been charged.
    Last night I heard a report on this incident which focused on the question of whether the cameraman should have dropped the camera and rushed to the defense of the reporter. The independent reporter I heard being interviewed, a female, said that if it had been her, she would want her cameraman to "keep filming until he sees the first drop of blood, and then drop the camera and come to my defense."

    I thought that this comment was interesting, although I don't know if it is the industry standard for when cameramen should stop filming an otherwise newsworthy event.

    Please note that in the State of Vermont there is a "good samaritan law" and had this incident occurred in Vermont, the cameraman arguably could have been charged with violating that law.
    Last edited by EagerBeaver; 09-08-2006 at 12:25 PM.

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •