EcoAffinity t1_j9micy5 wrote
From FB group: Springfield /Greene County Start Local, here is the post commentary regarding the Springfield Daily Citizen's article posted today:
>For a story on the torching of unsheltered encampments, Sheriff Arnott declined to answer questions from the reporter and said “no thanks, you do not print accurate information anyway so there is no sense in responding to you.” >Monica Horton, who is the council person for the area where the camps were burned, termed it “a complete nightmare. We should not be at war — burning personal belongings, life necessities. We are not at war with residents who are without shelter.” The Sheriff refused to confirm the story, but three unsheltered people told the reporter the same story they told Christie Love, that deputies showed up with gas cans, gave them minutes to leave, and their belongings were burned. >Greene County Commissioner Bob Dixon also declined to comment, although last month he called Arnott’s actions “tough love” and the right thing to do. >This isn’t the first time Arnott has attacked reporters. I remember in 2018 when the MEC ethics investigation into Greene County was concluded Arnott said to KY3 reporter Emily Wood: “This is why we don’t talk to Emily. Because you don’t report facts, you make things up. And that’s why we don’t talk to you anymore.” (SGF News-Leader, April 26, 2018)
The Sheriff has renewed raids against the homeless community this year.
LeeOblivious t1_j9mm7or wrote
Not following the Law and destroying evidence/personal belongings opens the county up to liability. I for one would rather my tax dollars go to something useful instead of paying for this dipshits stunts. Who wants to bet that there is not bodycam footage of the camp cleanup/arrests. Also, it is such a great use of our taxpayer dollars doing this when they could be patrolling the streets looking for intoxicated drivers, catalytic converter thieves, people driving at stupid speeds well above the speed limit, and helping to curd domestic violence. Part of the job of law enforcement leadership is to set up priorities and work on what helps the most people be safe. This sheriff just seems to like stunts and I'm sad for the deputies that have to work under him.
probably_inside t1_j9mxzr3 wrote
Arnott is also on the board of a far right sheriff's group. That is known for being election denialists, pro insurrection. Protect America now. Membership is 17.76 a month, non tax deductible. The website reads like your standard far right grift.
Mysteroo OP t1_j9mjw7k wrote
Well that feels a bit damning
Donohoed t1_j9moki9 wrote
Declining to comment isn't an admission of guilt. Absolutely nothing was established in that entire statement other than its wrong to treat homeless people that way, to which nobody disagreed. I can definitely see why they wouldn't comment to them if that's how they spin things.
Mysteroo OP t1_j9oju2m wrote
If what's how they spin things? That treating homeless people that way is wrong? If nobody disagrees, then what's the problem? Especially if they didn't actually do it?
All they need to say is "That's inaccurate." Or "This isn't the full story." Instead they're just blowing off journalists with blanket generaliztions about fake news. This is the only sensible response to being caught red handed, and a nonsensical response to be falsely accused
Donohoed t1_j9olo80 wrote
You got real hostile real quick for absolutely no reason and you sound absurd. It's clear from all your comments that you read whatever you want instead of what people say and were actually just looking for a circle jerk, not actual information. They can't just comment without investigating. Maybe somebody did do this, maybe it was even cops. I don't disagree at all that it needs investigated by state or federal authorities and/or independent sources and i certainly never suggested its OK to treat anyone like that, ever, and nobody else suggested that either. That's just your paranoid imagination.
Whatever happened there was a crime. Period. Whether real cops did it, fake cops, teenagers, the homeless people themselves, the property owners, whoever, it was a crime. Active investigations almost always are responded to with no comment until they have enough information to comment. Yes, obviously if he authorized it he's not going to admit that openly. But if it was done without his authorization by some gung-ho asshole cops and he says cops didn't do it then that'll come back on him as a lie even if he just didn't know until after the investigation.
Don't just pretend that anybody who doesn't immediately want the death penalty for all cops without an investigation into what actually happened must hate all homeless people. That's what you sound like. This needs investigated by whoever is in the appropriate position to do so, just like any other crime. The statement that i was referring to above acts like them not making a comment is an admission of guilt, and that's not how things work. They wrote an entire article based around how guilty they must be for not immediately commenting. That's crap journalism.
Mysteroo OP t1_j9phipr wrote
If you read hostility in my reply, then it's because I take issue with shrugging one's shoulders at the oppression of the marginalized, especially when it's justified with flimsy and unfounded skepticism.
I'm not going to play the ad-homenim game, so I'll just ignore all the jabs at my character. It's a waste of our time and energy.
>Active investigations almost always are responded to with no comment until they have enough information to comment.
But that's not what happened here. Not only do they have plenty of information to comment - but they also specified that they will not comment because they don't have any trust in the media reporters. It isn't that they lack information or that they are investigating - it's that they refuse to share any information at all.
>Don't just pretend that anybody who doesn't immediately want the death penalty for all cops without an investigation into what actually happened must hate all homeless people
Just going to point out: The idea that I'm pro-death-penalty, anti-cop, and that I don't think there should be an investigation... all incorrect.
Not making a comment isn't an admission of guilt. But it's foolish to pretend that their hostility towards the very question of it is anything but suspicious. The least they could say is "we have no comment at this time." But their response conveys "We have no comment to give at ANY time."
Wendypeffy t1_j9qoyhf wrote
He’s not wrong that KY3 tends to take some significant “journalistic liberties” with their writing. With that being said, I think I should be illegal for law enforcement to flat out decline to comment on their actions. If you are concerned about your public perception, don’t behave in a way that would be publicly rejected. At the very least sign a contract that all interviews must be recorded with exclusively raw, unedited footage published. It would accomplish the same goal and maintain the true integrity of the interview for both parties.
hatesgod t1_j9o4ihg wrote
highly suggesting this article for anyone seeking more information, a very thorough story.
Viewing a single comment thread. View all comments