Criminal Defense Lawyer Says Capital Murder Conviction Likely For El Paso Shooter – CBS Dallas / Fort Worth

South Texas Walmart Shuts Down Temporarily After Social Media Threat, 13-Year-Old In CustodyPolice in Weslaco, a South Texas border town, have arrested a 13-year-old boy for allegedly making violent threats on social media towards a Walmart. Katie Johnston reports.

29 minutes ago

After Recent Shootings, More Relaxed Texas Gun Laws Set To Go Into EffectBefore 22 people were gunned down at a Walmart in El Paso, Texas Republicans went to the Capitol this year with their eyes on new, more lenient gun laws. Katie Johnston reports.

30 minutes ago

Anne Elise Parks’ Weather ForecastHigh humidity levels bring dangerous feels-like temperatures to North Texas. Be sure to stay cool!

4 hours ago

So Sweet, Meyer LemonsUnlike its two popular counterparts (Eureka and Lisbon), the Meyer Lemon is favored for its mild, sweet, juicy flesh.

4 hours ago

Texas Sales Tax Holiday/Tax-Free Weekend Begins FridayIt’s that time of year again — the annual back-to-school sales tax holiday begins August 9 across Texas.

4 hours ago

Dora’s Most Dangerous Adventure Yet… High SchoolWhat’s Up DFW with Studio Movie Grill

Exploring the jungle was nothing compared to this next adventure… Find out how Dora takes on High School in Dora and the Lost City of Gold.

Get your tickets at StudioMovieGrill.com

4 hours ago

Vietnam War Veteran Is Finally HomeThe remains of a fighter pilot who was shot down in Vietnam during the war have returned to North Texas.

5 hours ago

Back To School Roundup Underway In Fort WorthBack To School Roundup Underway In Fort Worth

5 hours ago

Officials: 4 People Showed Up At Wrong House With Replica Assault Rifles To Film Rap Video In SouthlakeFour people with multiple replica assault rifles, fake bulletproof vests and bags of sugar meant to look like narcotics mistakenly showed up at the wrong house in Southlake to film a rap video, officials said. This led a resident to call authorities on the four males. Katie Johnston reports.

5 hours ago

Let’s block ads! (Why?)

Source link

Police are investigating a possible shooting threat at Twitch's headquarters, but say there's no longer an 'active threat'

Twitch

  • The San Francisco police on Wednesday are investigating a threat at the headquarters of the Amazon-owned streaming platform Twitch.
  • Employees at the company’s headquarters were offered the option to work from home.
  • “We were made aware of a threat against our San Francisco HQ on Tuesday, and have been working directly with law enforcement as they investigate,” the company told Business Insider in a statement. “The safety and security of our employees is our top priority, and we are focused on ensuring this is resolved quickly and safely.”
  • Officer Adam Lobsinger of the San Francisco Police Department told Business Insider on Wednesday morning that the police were investigating the threat at the headquarters. “We don’t have any suspect or know how credible the threat is at this time,” Lobsinger said.
  • By Wednesday afternoon, Lobsinger said there was no longer an “active threat” and the investigation has been referred to the SFPD’s special investigations department.
  • Visit Business Insider’s homepage for more stories.

The San Francisco Police Department responded to the headquarters of the streaming company Twitch on Wednesday after a threat was made against the company.

Twitch didn’t specify the nature of the threat, nor did the San Francisco Police Department, but multiple employees on private social-media accounts suggested that someone had threatened a shooting. 

“We were made aware of a threat against our San Francisco HQ on Tuesday,” a Twitch representative told Business Insider in a statement. “And have been working directly with law enforcement as they investigate. The safety and security of our employees is our top priority, and we are focused on ensuring this is resolved quickly and safely.”

SFPD officer Adam Lobsinger said the threat originated on Twitter, but couldn’t say more due to an ongoing investigation. By Wednesday afternoon, the San Francisco Police Department determined that there was no longer an “active threat” at Twitch HQ, and had referred the investigation to the SFPD’s special investigations department.

(If you work at Twitch and have more information to share, you can reach the author via email at bgilbert@businessinsider.com.)

Twitch

Employees at Twitch’s San Francisco-based headquarters were offered the option to work from home on Wednesday as the police investigated.

“A threat is being made against a business located on the 300 block of Bush Street” where Twitch HQ is located, Officer Adam Lobsinger of the San Francisco Police Department told Business Insider on Wednesday morning. The police were said to be “on scene investigating” as of Wednesday morning.

“We don’t have any suspect or know how credible the threat is at this time,” he said.

Other major tech companies have received violent threats in recent years.

In April 2018, a woman entered YouTube’s San Bruno, California, offices and shot three people before killing herself. Later that year, in December, a bomb threat shut down Facebook’s Menlo Park, California, campus.

YouTube shooting

Twitch is based in San Francisco but is owned by the Seattle-based Amazon. The company is best known for its wildly popular streaming service of the same name, which primarily features people playing video games live on camera.

This week’s threat to Twitch has come as gaming faces new criticism from politicians.

President Donald Trump on Monday argued that the internet and gaming spurred violence following two mass shootings over the weekend in El Paso, Texas, and Dayton, Ohio, in which a combined 31 people were killed.

“The perils of the internet and social media cannot be ignored and they will not be ignored,” Trump said, going on to say that “includes the gruesome video games that are now commonplace.”

SEE ALSO: How the YouTube shooting unfolded

Join the conversation about this story »

NOW WATCH: All the ways Amazon is taking over your house

Source link

FOX Signs Exclusive, Broadcast-Only Talent Deal with Jeff Davis – Broadway World

.youtubeWrapper, .vimeoWrapper, .instagramWrapper
position: relative;
padding-top: 30px; height: 0; overflow: hidden;

/* Set the padding-bottom for 16:9 aspect ratio video from YouTube & Vimeo */
.youtubeWrapper, .vimeoWrapper
padding-bottom: 56.25%;

/* Set padding-bottom for 5:6 aspect ratio Instagram content */
.instagramWrapper
padding-bottom: 120%;

/* For each content source, set the IFRAME to be top left and occupy 100% of width and height of the containing DIV wrapper */
.youtubeWrapper iframe,
.youtubeWrapper object,
.youtubeWrapper embed,
.vimeoWrapper iframe,
.vimeoWrapper object,
.vimeoWrapper embed,
.instagramWrapper iframe,
.instagramWrapper object,
.instagramWrapper embed
position: absolute;
top: 0;
left: 0;
width: 100%;
height: 100%;

FOX Signs Exclusive, Broadcast-Only Talent Deal with Jeff Davis

FOX Entertainment has signed writer/creator Jeff Davis (“Criminal Minds,” “Teen Wolf”) to a direct, exclusive, broadcast-only talent deal, it was announced today by Michael Thorn, President, Entertainment, FOX Entertainment.

Under terms of the agreement, Davis will develop scripted dramas for the FOX network. The agreement marks FOX Entertainment’s first direct, overall term deal.

“Jeff is a singular talent with a unique voice. His ability to create an incredibly wide range of shows – from character-driven procedurals like ‘Criminal Minds’ to Pop culture-piercing coming-of-age stories like ‘Teen Wolf’ – is what makes this deal so significant,” said Thorn. “As the company’s first direct overall deal, it has even greater significance because it underscores our commitment to being in business with the industry’s best creators – and offering them flexibility and backend, both rare commodities in today’s marketplace.”

“Producing the pilot of ‘Teen Wolf’ with Michael Thorn not only began one of the best professional experiences I’ve had, but set a high bar for collaborative partners that I’ve sought to replicate ever since,” Davis added. “The chance to do it again with him, Charlie Collier, Charlie Andrews, Gabriel Marano and the rest of their team at FOX was one I couldn’t pass up.”

Jeff Davis created CBS’ hit series, “Criminal Minds,” and has gone on to develop pilots for a number of networks, including creating and serving as the showrunner for all 100 episodes of MTV’s hit series, “Teen Wolf.” Along with producer David Janollari, Davis currently is working on a pilot for cable’s Syfy, based on the classic series “Night Gallery.”

A division of FOX Corporation, FOX Entertainment’s 30-year legacy of innovative, hit programming includes 9-1-1, THE MASKED SINGER, EMPIRE, LAST MAN STANDING, 24, “The X-Files” and “American Idol.” Delivering high-quality scripted, non-scripted and live content, its broadcast network airs 15 hours of primetime programming a week, as well as major sports. It is the only major broadcaster to post year-over-year ratings growth during the 2018-2019 season.

Related Articles

View More
TV Stories

From This Author
TV News Desk

Let’s block ads! (Why?)

Source link

Opinion: Criminal defense lawyers are people, too – Opinion – Burlington County Times

Take the first, and now infamous, sexual abuse investigation of Jeffrey Epstein. Epstein hired Alan Dershowitz and others to defend him, and the defense team succeeded in resolving the case with a federal non-prosecution agreement and a relatively minor state plea.

A journalist for NPR recently asked Dershowitz whether he now regrets having achieved such a favorable result for his client, who since has been arrested again and charged with sex trafficking. This is the wrong question to ask a criminal defense lawyer. Dershowitz’s only mission at the time — in fact, his ethical obligation — was to defeat the investigation or, if he couldn’t do that, resolve it on the most favorable terms possible for his client. The better question — and the one that remains unanswered — is why, under the circumstances, federal prosecutors agreed to such a lenient deal.

Harvey Weinstein’s sexual assault case in Manhattan is also instructive. Earlier this year, Weinstein hired Ronald Sullivan, a Harvard law professor who also served as the faculty dean of an undergraduate housing facility. Students protested, contending they no longer felt safe in the dormitory, and the college ultimately forced him out as dean. The college’s response didn’t make sense. You are free to dislike, even despise, Weinstein, but what did his lawyer do?

There are many reasons not to attack an unpopular defendant’s lawyer. A hallmark of our criminal justice system is that every criminal defendant has a constitutional right to the “assistance of counsel,” which, according to the U.S. Supreme Court, means that he can retain a lawyer of his choice and mount his own defense. Or, if he cannot afford counsel, he can have one appointed to represent him.

Punishing the lawyer of a notorious defendant, or insinuating that they should regret doing their job well, chips away at this right. Doing so discourages lawyers from taking on unpopular clients, and it can deprive a defendant of his choice of counsel. Sullivan, for example, resigned from Weinstein’s defense team shortly before he was ousted from his position as dean.

In addition, every criminal defendant has a right to be presumed innocent until proved otherwise. This presumption of innocence, a distinguishing feature of our legal system, is a critical safeguard against prosecutorial abuse. Punishing a lawyer because you disapprove of their client undermines this protection, reinforcing the perception that the defendant is already guilty.

Sometimes unpopular defendants are actually innocent. This is why — in addition to other hurdles criminal defendants must overcome, including access to qualified counsel — it’s essential that every defendant be permitted to pursue his defense without having to worry that his lawyer will be attacked.

Still, there are limits. When a lawyer breaks the rules on behalf of a client, they deserve to be punished. In 2005, for example, a defense lawyer named Lynne Stewart was convicted for smuggling messages from her client, terrorist Sheikh Omar Abdel-Rahman, also known as the “blind Sheikh,” to his followers in violation of certain “special administrative measures” governing her representation.

Or take Michael Cohen. He was a zealous advocate for his client, Donald Trump, but he crossed the line into criminal conduct and was prosecuted as a result.

Dershowitz told NPR that “you should always feel bad about producing results” like the one he helped obtain in the Epstein case, because the job of a criminal defense lawyer is “to do what you can to help your client and then to feel bad about it.”

That overstates the case. Rather than regret their success, a lawyer usually has the option to decline a particular representation, and it has been reported that Dershowitz, who faces his own legal troubles over his association with Epstein, regrets having taken him on as a client.

But when a defense lawyer takes on an unpopular client, they may also be carrying out what’s noblest about the legal profession. Every criminal defendant deserves and is entitled to a defense. Punishing a lawyer for representing their client undermines that guarantee.

Daniel Suleiman is a white-collar criminal defense and investigations lawyer and was deputy chief of staff of the Justice Department’s criminal division in 2012-13. He wrote this for The Baltimore Sun.

Let’s block ads! (Why?)

Source link

A new lawsuit accuses Apple of violating user's privacy by allegedly allowing Siri to record without consent (AAPL)

apple siri

  • A recently filed class-action lawsuit accuses Apple of violating user privacy by allegedly recording consumers and minors with its Siri digital assistant without consent.
  • The lawsuit comes after The Guardian reported that the contractors Apple hires to evaluate Siri’s performance regularly hear confidential interactions.
  • Apple announced that it was suspending its Siri grading program globally following the report.
  • Amazon also came under fire earlier this year over how it handles Alexa recordings.
  • Visit Business Insider’s homepage for more stories. 

Apple is facing a class-action lawsuit claiming that the company’s Siri voice assistant is violating customer privacy by allegedly recording users without their consent.

The lawsuit, which Bloomberg first reported, comes after The Guardian discovered that the contractors Apple hires to evaluate Siri’s performance regularly hear confidential interactions that may have occurred when Siri was triggered unintentionally. Apple announced that it was suspending its Siri grading program globally following the report.

The lawsuit alleges Siri users are being recorded without their consent and accuses Apple of failing to inform consumers that could happen.

Apple did not immediately respond to Business Insider’s request for comment regarding the lawsuit.

Apple isn’t the only company to come under fire for the way it manages recordings picked up by its virtual assistant. Privacy concerns over Amazon’s Alexa bubbled up earlier this year after Bloomberg reported that the retail giant had hired thousands of people to listen to voice recordings captured by its Echo smart speakers to improve its accuracy. 

What happens to your Siri requests

When you ask Siri a question, your name and the request you’ve asked Siri is sent to Apple’s voice-recognition servers. But that information is tied to a random identifier that your device generates, meaning it’s not associated with your Apple ID.

The company saves voice recordings for up to six months at a time to improve Siri’s accuracy. After that six-month period, it saves another copy of the data without its identifier for up to two years. Apple may also save some recordings, transcripts, and associated data beyond that two years to improve Siri, and in the past some of that data had gone through a grading process that involved human reviewers.

Apple has since suspended that grading program, but it’s unclear if it made any other changes in regards to how it handles user data.

SEE ALSO: Apple’s first foldable device could arrive in 2021, but it might not be an iPhone

Join the conversation about this story »

NOW WATCH: Here’s why phone companies like Verizon and AT&T charge more for extra data

Source link