quote:

Originally posted by ulsterman:

quote:

Originally posted by DaBigBR:
No mandatory arrest here unless there is injury and the primary physical aggressor can be determined.

And she sucks, but she's right...it is a personal matter and really nobody else's business.

Correct. Until the police are called.

I disagree.

These types of things happen all over the country all the time and because the parties involved are not somebody, nobody goes prying for reports and video.

I'm well aware of the various open records and freedom of information laws. I'm also well aware of how they are used by, among other people, the media, to peek into private lives. Frankly, incidents like this are the very basis for the ACLU's concern and, to some extent, opposition to body cameras, at least in some circumstances when they first started to appear. Open records and freedom of information laws generally did not contemplate a person requesting a video showing a more or less first person view inside a person's home, especially under unfavorable circumstances.

I don't like Kim Foxx or anything that she stands for, but I don't feel like what happens between her and her husband in their own home with circumstances that the police (rightly) determined did not warrant an arrest is at all in the public interest.

If you call the police to report that your car was broken into, do you think your neighbor, your employer, or any other swinging dick has any business requesting body camera video just to stoke their own curiosity? And I'm not asking if you think it's legal.

I come to this opinion from, among other things, a good number of years of policing where I have watched video technology go from barely working VHS car cameras with terribly low quality and short ranged wireless mics to very high fidelity body and car cameras. I have seen far more people ask and even beg random strangers to stop recording their interaction with the police than I have seen demand it. These are often very negative times for people and they (justifiably) do not want a random stranger voyeuristically observing.

I think Foxx should be held to a higher standard considering her position. It is not a matter of voyeurism. It speaks to her character.

quote:

Originally posted by DaBigBR:

quote:

Originally posted by ulsterman:
Correct. Until the police are called.

I disagree.

These types of things happen all over the country all the time and because the parties involved are not somebody, nobody goes prying for reports and video.

I’m not sure exactly what ulsterman meant. It may be that he meant it is not longer private because the police were called and as a result they are involved. That certainly seems correct to me. As you so eloquently state, just because the police were called doesn’t necessarily make it anyone else’s business beyond the responding officers and whoever follows through on the charges if it comes to that.

Making halfway decent laws is hard. Public records acts make sense, as we don’t want our government operating in secrecy. On the other hand, if those laws designed to keep our government transparent allow folks to pry into other folks’ privacy, those laws aren’t perfect (not that anything ever is).

Just to play Devil’s Advocate for a minute, if an individual holds an important elected office with considerable power over other citizens the voters might have some legitimate interest in knowing about any dealings that individual has with law enforcement that might shed light on their character or fitness for the position they hold.

quote:

Originally posted by ZSMICHAEL:
I think Foxx should be held to a higher standard considering her position. It is not a matter of voyeurism. It speaks to her character.

That's what I was thinking- You're a Public Official and more open to public scrutiny.

Especially today when private citizens are held accountable and fired for actions not related to their jobs.

I admit I was left trying to determine what ulsterman meant so I took my best guess.

I also understand the "higher standard" argument, but then the question is what constitutes enough cause to invoke said "higher standard clause" (a term I am making up)? An unsubstantiated claim from the husband is essentially what we have here. She denies it (sort of), there was no visible injury, their kid only heard arguing.

If I'm powerful or famous or wealthy or whatever, at what point do I lose the right to have a private argument in my wife in our private residence?

quote:

Originally posted by DaBigBR:
I admit I was left trying to determine what ulsterman meant so I took my best guess.

I also understand the "higher standard" argument, but then the question is what constitutes enough cause to invoke said "higher standard clause" (a term I am making up)? An unsubstantiated claim from the husband is essentially what we have here. She denies it (sort of), there was no visible injury, their kid only heard arguing.

If I'm powerful or famous or wealthy or whatever, at what point do I lose the right to have a private argument in my wife in our private residence?

Yeah, that’s a tough question, at least w/ respect to powerful (public official). I’d argue that famous or wealthy shouldn’t matter, they should have the same rights as other citizens. Heck, maybe politicians should too, but I’d be more open to an argument that that they should be held to a higher standard.

I understand the want for privacy in these matters, I also understand the "held to a higher standard" thing as well.

But what happens when you use the "please respect our privacy" thing too much?
Ahhh, I don't want to answer any of your questions- please respect my privacy!

When asked pressing question about the juicy smolette debacle, she used the "my husband has cancer, please respect our privacy" excuse then, was allowed to walk away. She always seems to give some canned, "woke" response to questions about her incompetent actions, and gets away with it. Granted, it's also by the left wing Chicago media.

At some point, she needs to be publicly asked hard questions about her actions, AND SHE NEEDS TO RESPOND TO THEM!
SHE decided to take a public office, then run for the head of that office. Positions like that have certain perks and downfalls. Well, this is one of those downfalls. Now answer the fuck up, bitch!

I think you get to request privacy when your privacy is actually implicated. Not answering questions about a pending case? That's part of the job. Can't handle it because of something at home? Take leave and appoint an acting DA. But she wouldn't do that...

FLOSSMOOR, Ill. — WGN News has obtained the 911 call of the domestic dispute involving Cook County State’s Attorney Kim Foxx through a Freedom of Information Act.

Foxx’s husband called 911 shortly after 10 p.m. on June 4, according to records from Flossmoor police.

Her husband, Kelley, can be heard on the call saying “don’t touch me.” Foxx responds by telling him to get out of the house.

The 911 call recording, in part, said:

911 operator: What’s going on there?

Kelley Foxx: A domestic issue.

911 operator: Is it you, or someone else?

Kelley Foxx: My wife and I.

911 operator: Is it physical, or just verbal?

Kelley Foxx: It’s physical.

911 operator: Is anyone injured?

Kelley Foxx: No. Not yet.

Police: Officers called to Kim Foxx’s home for report of domestic dispute
According to records from Flossmoor police obtained by WGN through the Freedom of Information Act, “[Foxx’s husband] explained that Kimberly got mad about something that was posted on Facebook that he did,” one of the responding officers wrote in a report. “Kimberly asked him to leave and he refused.”

Kelley said that she grabbed him by the collar and threw down a video game controller he was holding, according to police records. He went on to tell police that Foxx slapped him on the left cheek.

A responding officer wrote that they “did not see any evidence to support an arrest in this incident.”

link: https://wgntv.com/news/chicago...ic-dispute-revealed/