To remain on the Fr. Martins incident just a bit: Does JD really think that “inappropriate” behavior that violates diocesan policy is something to call the police about? To me, this seems well inappropriate, excessive, and misdirected. Police should be called when it’s possible that a crime has been committed. And while good people can d…
To remain on the Fr. Martins incident just a bit: Does JD really think that “inappropriate” behavior that violates diocesan policy is something to call the police about? To me, this seems well inappropriate, excessive, and misdirected. Police should be called when it’s possible that a crime has been committed. And while good people can disagree about the appropriateness or prudence of Fr. Martins’s behavior, I think it’s clear that at least in the facts we have been told, it was not a matter necessitating law enforcement. That is why no arrest or charges were made.
What JD thinks about that is immaterial, for what it's worth. And as long as we're reporting on it, and until I know more facts, I'd be loathe to weigh in on whether someone should or should not have called the police.
Well, the thing is, it doesn't really matter whether or not a journalist thinks the police should or should not have been called. It's a journalist's job to report on whether or not the police have been called and why they were or were not called. Readers can then judge for themselves whether they think that the police ought to have been called.
Well let me clarify. We really haven’t known the story. The fact is that the police were called on an internationally known priest and the local diocese essentially kicked him out. That is certainly newsworthy. Was I criticizing? I suppose a little. I might have sat on the piece a day or cut it way down.
To remain on the Fr. Martins incident just a bit: Does JD really think that “inappropriate” behavior that violates diocesan policy is something to call the police about? To me, this seems well inappropriate, excessive, and misdirected. Police should be called when it’s possible that a crime has been committed. And while good people can disagree about the appropriateness or prudence of Fr. Martins’s behavior, I think it’s clear that at least in the facts we have been told, it was not a matter necessitating law enforcement. That is why no arrest or charges were made.
What JD thinks about that is immaterial, for what it's worth. And as long as we're reporting on it, and until I know more facts, I'd be loathe to weigh in on whether someone should or should not have called the police.
I will say that priests don't call the police on priests very lightly.
I would definitely be most interested in how the incident was viewed by adults present in the room who witnessed it directly.
I think one question to figure out is if there even are any adults who witnessed it
Clearly the girl's father thought a crime had been committed, it's the job of the police to decide whether or not there's evidence that one did occur.
Well, the thing is, it doesn't really matter whether or not a journalist thinks the police should or should not have been called. It's a journalist's job to report on whether or not the police have been called and why they were or were not called. Readers can then judge for themselves whether they think that the police ought to have been called.
thanks. correct.
Well let me clarify. We really haven’t known the story. The fact is that the police were called on an internationally known priest and the local diocese essentially kicked him out. That is certainly newsworthy. Was I criticizing? I suppose a little. I might have sat on the piece a day or cut it way down.