Comments on: Omaha restaurateur on trial for tweet

By: Big Ed

Big Ed — Wed, 08 Feb 2017 20:49:20 +0000

In reply to John Rohan. He lost as soon as he was arrested. Oh, he got a "not guilty" but he is likely out tens of thousands of dollars to defend himself from charges that should never have been filed.

By: Paul

Paul — Wed, 08 Feb 2017 18:51:07 +0000

I vote not guilty.

By: Regret

Regret — Wed, 08 Feb 2017 18:14:29 +0000

In reply to John Rohan. Other than your first sentence, I think you are spot on. Since this is a jury trial, I can see him losing, but he certainly shouldn't.

By: gitarcarver

gitarcarver — Wed, 08 Feb 2017 18:05:20 +0000

The restaurant owner has been found “not guilty.”

http://www.wowt.com/content/news/Verdict-reached-in-Twitter-flap-that-put-Salt-in-hot-water-413175653.html

Justice prevails, but at what cost to the owner? How much did he have to pay for his defense of an arguably bogus and ridiculous charge?

Sometimes the process is the punishment.

By: John Rohan

John Rohan — Wed, 08 Feb 2017 16:33:44 +0000

I don’t see how he could lose this case. He had no specific knowledge that this was a sting operation, he just guessed it based on what he saw, same as anyone else could. If they are really worried the kids were put in danger, they did it with their own actions, not because of the restaurant owner.

By: SPO

SPO — Wed, 08 Feb 2017 15:56:21 +0000

Hmmmm. Publishing truthful information without a prior agreement to keep quiet, and he’s haled into court? Seems to me that some prosecutors need to be acquainted with the First Amendment.

By: E-Bell

E-Bell — Wed, 08 Feb 2017 15:21:08 +0000

Kind of ridiculous if you ask me. Maybe he thought it was a law enforcement operation, but didn’t know for sure, which is why he wrote “sting.”

Many many years ago, as a baby prosecutor, I had a similar situation arise. The local authorities were sending in cops who happened to be under 21 to purchase beer from local convenience stores. One convenience store got busted and called a few others in the area to warn them of the operation.

The police wanted to know if they could charge him with obstructing their investigation. My thoughts at the time were that they were going to try to arrest someone for telling other people to make sure they comply with the law. That didn’t sound like obstruction to me, and it still doesn’t.

This case is a little different because it involves the dissemination of photos of undercover informants, but still.