Found Deceased Canada - Nick Lush, 32, Calgary, 29 March 2015 *Arrests*

[OutOfTheDarkness]

I suspect that is why they pulled his history. The problem I have, is with the context. If no motive has been suggested, it is not a Reporter's job to make one up from supposition. Here on this forum, we can lack the ethical and journalistic standards because the context of what we do here, is to sleuth. A Reporter is *supposed* to abide by standards that include relevance, context and facts. While this type of reporting has become standard in the U.S. we are fortunate enough to be somewhat free from the sensationalistic driven stories. Notice that other MSM outlets didn't report these 'facts' - There is a fine line that shouldn't be crossed.... Demonizing a victim the day the family have been apprised of the news of the man's murder, is sensationalism and tacky.

Censorship.

Simply because it is negative, does not make it irrelevant. Without proper context, every one of us should then be frightened to attend a party. For all we would then know, one can be abducted and murdered for no reason, because there was no history to this person and his lifestyle. By your definition, his wife, children, occupation, and any history is also irrelevant.

In this case, the victim allegedly discusses some of his trial history publicly, so it is fair game. It is also public record, therefore it is fair game, and in the public interest to put this event into proper context. The relevance is the lifestyle. If a banker is shot and was convicted of money laundering 10 years ago... to report it is relevant.

One could also argue that since there is a fund drive being advertised, the public has a right to know what they are contributing to without being misled and be given a full disclosure.

Public interest. Is that not part of Journalistic ethics?

I would prefer to be treated like an adult, and I myself will weigh the relevance of one's criminal history and how it relates to their death. The criminal history of one who dies from criminal intent is 100% relevant.

 

[news.talk]

Censorship.

Simply because it is negative, does not make it irrelevant. Without proper context, every one of us should then be frightened to attend a party. For all we would then know, one can be abducted and murdered for no reason, because there was no history to this person and his lifestyle. By your definition, his wife, children, occupation, and any history is also irrelevant.

In this case, the victim allegedly discusses some of his trial history, so it is fair game. It is also public record, therefore it is fair game, and in the public interest to put this event into proper context. The relevance is the lifestyle. If a banker is shot and was convicted of money laundering 10 years ago... to report it is relevant.

One could also argue that since there is a fund drive being advertised, the public has a right to know what they are contributing to without being mislead and be given a full disclosure.

Public interest. Is that not part of Journalistic ethics?

I would prefer to be treated like an adult, and I myself will weigh the relevance of one's criminal history and how it relates to their death. The criminal history of one who dies from criminal intent is 100% relevant.

There is a fine line between public interest and sensationalism.

What I was talking about is the same thing I talk about in Ethics class - Is it relevant to the scope of the story?

For this story, the scope is on charges being laid and the names of the suspects that were released. This wasn't a piece on the victim, nor was motive mentioned by any of the subjects of the story including the person interviewed. A reporter should never introduce the victim's criminal history unless it is relevant and has been introduced by the subject of the story. What they did was pure sensationalism - It did not add anything to the story that was introduced by the subject or interviewee of the story. No correlation was done, no context was provided and no background was introduced. It was just slapped in there so haphazardly, that I couldn't believe it wasn't an error. It was that poorly written and out of place.

I have absolutely no qualms about pieces that delve into motive and background - This was not one of them. It was out of place and integrally questionable.

 

[Miranda]

A few reporters chiming in on the subject

Reporters often turn to murder victims’ criminal records when no other details about motive are available. Critics say this technique can mislead readers –and should be dropped from journalists’ toolkits once and for all

http://www.thecrimereport.org/news/...-does-a-crime-victims-criminal-history-matter

 

[OutOfTheDarkness]

There is a fine line between public interest and sensationalism.

What I was talking about is the same thing I talk about in Ethics class - Is it relevant to the scope of the story?

For this story, the scope is on charges being laid and the names of the suspects that were released. This wasn't a piece on the victim, nor was motive mentioned by any of the subjects of the story including the person interviewed. A reporter should never introduce the victim's criminal history unless it is relevant and has been introduced by the subject of the story. What they did was pure sensationalism - It did not add anything to the story that was introduced by the subject or interviewee of the story. No correlation was done, no context was provided and no background was introduced. It was just slapped in there so haphazardly, that I couldn't believe it wasn't an error. It was that poorly written and out of place.

I have absolutely no qualms about pieces that delve into motive and background - This was not one of them. It was out of place and integrally questionable.

Or... it was placed with the criminal history of the other participants without judgement, inference, or favoritism. The reader is left with the facts to weigh the relevance themselves.

I would suggest the saint making and fundraising is sensationalistic. The need to wring every ounce of tragedy, sympathy, and emotion from what should be factual reporting is where the line has been crossed. The stories of the interviewed are reported as Gospel without being checked for accuracy. Questions are never asked. Should not someone ask the "spokesperson" if one's criminal history had anything to do with their death? You know... real reporting?

What headline is more sensationalist...

Victim Had Criminal Record

Or

Father Of Three Murdered And Will Never See His Kids Grow Up

 

[news.talk]

Or... it was placed with the criminal history of the other participants without judgement, inference, or favoritism. The reader is left with the facts to weigh the relevance themselves.

I would suggest the saint making and fundraising is sensationalistic. The need to wring every ounce of tragedy, sympathy, and emotion from what should be factual reporting is where the line has been crossed. The stories of the interviewed are reported as Gospel without being checked for accuracy. Questions are never asked. Should not someone ask the "spokesperson" if one's criminal history had anything to do with their death? You know... real reporting?

What headline is more sensationalist...

Victim Had Criminal Record

Or

Father Of Three Murdered And Will Never See His Kids Grow Up

The problem is, the scope was not followed. Should someone do a follow-up piece regarding motive that THEN introduce the victim's criminal history? Yes. If it is relevant. It is not a reporter's job to introduce motive without any facts to back it up. You're right - no follow up questions were asked about motive, so in my argument, it should not be introduced. Had someone that they interviewed stated that he had drug debts or a long history of violent altercation, THEN his criminal history with regard to drugs or assaults would be relevant. Nothing was introduced nor substantiated.

Crowdsourcing funding is silly IMHO. It should be up to the people donating to decide where their money goes though. They aren't donating money to a criminal enterprise or to aid in the defense of a drug delear - the money is intended for the children and funeral costs. The wife and children should not be branded as bad people because their murdered family member has a criminal background. The fact is - we don't know why he died at this point. To introduce his criminal history without substantiation, is BAD reporting.

 

[news.talk]

A few reporters chiming in on the subject



http://www.thecrimereport.org/news/...-does-a-crime-victims-criminal-history-matter

EXACTLY. Most Editors and News Director's that I know, wouldn't even allow that information to be introduced without context or a source. Reporter's don't create the news - they report it.

 

[deugirtni]

I thought it was really odd when I first read about the victim's previous convictions in the story where they were announcing his death. I agree they don't need to fluff it over, and his criminal history could very well have something to do with the ultimate motive for his murder. But like others have said, a time and a place, and a different news story.

To me, it would be like reporting on a story where a woman is brutally raped and killed, and then putting in a paragraph about prior criminal history of the 2 perps, and then adding a line about how the victim has had a couple of DUI convictions and maybe also a conviction for being topless at a beach one time, etc. It leads one to wonder if the reporter, without admitting it, is suggesting a reason for the murder, or alluding to the victim's possible deserving of being attacked.

If reporter is accused of doing so, reporter can simply say, 'was just reporting facts, never once did I say the victim's previous convictions were related'. Kind of like a troll on a web forum. Just doesn't seem right, and surely not on the day and in the same story where the victim's fate is reported.

Or... it was placed with the criminal history of the other participants without judgement, inference, or favoritism. The reader is left with the facts to weigh the relevance themselves.

I would suggest the saint making and fundraising is sensationalistic. The need to wring every ounce of tragedy, sympathy, and emotion from what should be factual reporting is where the line has been crossed. The stories of the interviewed are reported as Gospel without being checked for accuracy. Questions are never asked. Should not someone ask the "spokesperson" if one's criminal history had anything to do with their death? You know... real reporting?

What headline is more sensationalist...

Victim Had Criminal Record

Or

Father Of Three Murdered And Will Never See His Kids Grow Up

 

[news.talk]

Putting this is a different frame:

Let's say a woman was brutally raped. A man is charged. In the same story, the reporter writes... "Woman has a criminal charge for prostitution on record" - Maybe she was a prostitute but no longer is or maybe she still is. Those facts are not clarified or substantiated by a source, so it becomes victim blaming by simply putting the information out there. Is her past relevant to the man being charged? Does that mean that she asked or deserved to be raped? Unless that is part of the story and can be backed-up by a source or motive, then it is pure sensationalism.

By your argument, the victim's criminal history should be known *in case* it is relevant and for the public to decide. That doesn't make it any less shameful and in poor taste to publish.

It doesn't matter *at this point* whether NL had prior charges. Until it is introduced by a source or in the context of motive, it shouldn't be introduced. He is still a victim - he may have led a shady life or made poor choices, but at this point.... when announcing that he was murdered, his past shouldn't be mentioned. Not yet.

 

[news.talk]

I thought it was really odd when I first read about the victim's previous convictions in the story where they were announcing his death. I agree they don't need to fluff it over, and his criminal history could very well have something to do with the ultimate motive for his murder. But like others have said, a time and a place, and a different news story.

To me, it would be like reporting on a story where a woman is brutally raped and killed, and then putting in a paragraph about prior criminal history of the 2 perps, and then adding a line about how the victim has had a couple of DUI convictions and maybe also a conviction for being topless at a beach one time, etc. It leads one to wonder if the reporter, without admitting it, is suggesting a reason for the murder, or alluding to the victim's possible deserving of being attacked.

If reporter is accused of doing so, reporter can simply say, 'was just reporting facts, never once did I say the victim's previous convictions were related'. Kind of like a troll on a web forum. Just doesn't seem right, and surely not on the day and in the same story where the victim's fate is reported.

Funny, I just finished posting a similar analogy. These could be old charges and completely irrelevant to the homicide. No context was given and the mention of the victim's criminal history didn't follow a source claiming that the victim owed money for drug debts for example. It came out of left field and was in very poor taste. Trolling - well put.

It's the kind of crap we see on U.S. shows like Nancy Grace - dissecting the victim with the disclaimer, "just putting it out there... You the public can decide." Blech. [emoji13]

 

[deugirtni]

In my kind of similarish post up above, I thought about putting the prostitution charge (but hopefully it would have had to have been a conviction and not just a 'charge') in there too, but.. you know.. then people would think, well ya.. when you're a prostitute, you're taking those kinds of risks, comes with the territory, so I just left it out altogether, and stuck with perhaps the woman had an alcohol issue, and liked to be topless at the beach.

Putting this is a different frame:

Let's say a woman was brutally raped. A man is charged. In the same story, the reporter writes... "Woman has a criminal charge for prostitution on record" - Maybe she was a prostitute but no longer is or maybe she still is. Those facts are not clarified or substantiated by a source, so it becomes victim blaming by simply putting the information out there. Is her past relevant to the man being charged? Does that mean that she asked or deserved to be raped? Unless that is part of the story and can be backed-up by a source or motive, then it is pure sensationalism.

By your argument, the victim's criminal history should be known *in case* it is relevant and for the public to decide. That doesn't make it any less shameful and in poor taste to publish.

It doesn't matter *at this point* whether NL had prior charges. Until it is introduced by a source or in the context of motive, it shouldn't be introduced. He is still a victim - he may have led a shady life or made poor choices, but at this point.... when announcing that he was murdered, his past shouldn't be mentioned. Not yet.

 

[news.talk]

In my kind of similarish post up above, I thought about putting the prostitution charge (but hopefully it would have had to have been a conviction and not just a 'charge') in there too, but.. you know.. then people would think, well ya.. when you're a prostitute, you're taking those kinds of risks, comes with the territory, so I just left it out altogether, and stuck with perhaps the woman had an alcohol issue, and liked to be topless at the beach.

I guess it can be paralleled with someone that has an assault charge getting assaulted or murdered.... Asking for it type of argument. We don't know how old those charges are or if they *are* relevant. Just because someone has made mistakes in the past, doesn't mean that they shouldn't be shown dignity and compassion in the future....It certainly doesn't mean they deserved what they got, which is exactly what putting it out of context or without context, implies.

 

[deugirtni]

This post is kind of a mish-mash of thoughts...

-it said in various articles that NL knew nobody at the party except for his cousin.. (has it been stated who the cousin is for sure, or are we just assuming it was the one guy Thomas or whatever is name is?).. in one of the articles (without enough time at the moment to find exact wording - nevermind, found it see end of paragraph), I got the impression that while NL perhaps hadn't 'met' (physically in person) the people at the party (who ended up killing him), his cousin had intro'd them at the party.. but perhaps they knew each other from online previously(?)... ie.. perhaps there was discussion about a transaction.. buyer/seller.. online.. which ended up actually transacting/being introduced in real life, at the party.. "Heald says Lush knew the accused through his cousin, and they had just met that night at the party."

-the first degree murder charges.. don't always have to mean pre-planned.. could mean.. NL was taken in the vehicle against his will.. (abducted?).. or killed during the commission of another crime?

-the wording in the news article was really weird to me in regard to the children of NL and his wife.. something like 'the children they cared for', or something.. what's up with that? "Brad Zingel and his wife Shannon — Nick’s cousin — said they were worried about the financial situation for Denise Lush and the three young kids she cared for with Nick, " (BBM)

-the prior convictions of NL.. I think it is unfair, because.. in addition to perceived victim-blaming, there is also no context.. no dates/ages.. no actual events, just the convictions.. for example.. the first thing I thought when I saw the victim's height.. was that he likely could have suffered through a lot of 'bullying' in his lifetime, even though I am being sterotypical.. I know that thugs like to pick on the smaller guys, like it or not. So if NL had weapons charges, (assault with a weapon, carrying a concealed weapon), those charges could be something totally different from what people might think when reading that.. and for all we know, 'drug possession' could have been a bit of weed when he was 18.. I'm sure we all know adults who smoke weed and seem to function okay in their daily lives.. I just think it's unfair to list those convictions without at least some background, dates, etc.

-I noticed that when it was reported the 2 incidents were related, ie the report of someone being beaten, and then that the guys in the vehicle were charged with NL's murder... it stated that a large amount of blood was found.. and this was after the 2 guys' arrests.. so it reminded me of the exact opposite being reported in the Nathan O'Brien case, where LE refused to state that blood was found, or how much of it was found. Wonder why it's ok to report it in one case but not another. ("Springbank and police said an assault reported at a highway underpass near Cochrane the next morning, where they reportedly found a large amount of blood, was connected.")

-in regard to the public fund-raising thing.. I have to admit.. I think it is such a great idea.. when I think about all of the usual fundraising organizations, and how much of those funds are spent on the administration of the fundraising itself, staffing, etc, rather than most of the funds going to the actual cause of the fundraising, I think it is great that people who may have funds they want to donate to what they perceive to be a good cause, now have choices on exactly how their money is spent. If someone might have a fabulous business plan, but they can't get a loan through normal channels... they now can try doing this fundraising thing. And for NL's family.. hopefully he had life insurance to take care of his family in the event of his death.. but failing that, this woman and her 3 young children surely shouldn't expect to be judged, or be perceived to require less support, just because her murdered husband had convictions in his lifetime? With these children, they are all young, and this woman will now need to support them all on her own. Quite a bit different than a fundraiser for adults who lost their parents (who presumably weren't supporting said adults in the first place?).. or a fundraiser for parents who lost their child (who presumably didn't provide financial support to his parents?).. this woman will actually need some financial help. I would hope that anyone wanting to help the woman with this wouldn't pass judgement on her and the children just because the deceased husband/father had a bit of a criminal history.

 

[stan laurel]

should be posted on the Jessica Newman thread but here seems good too; JN's father/stepmother takes care of her children that she had with KL. This was gleaned from her stepmothers FB page.

something in Deug's post made me think of this.

 

[PonderingNS]

If that is what CBC was referencing (dropped charges) and they are "shaming" a victim could they be sued?

ETA... It can't be referencing the dropped charges... CBC responded to me that he was convicted (see comments upthread).

I don't think they were referencing the dropped charges. In NL 's own words he stated " ONE trial down" so that would suggest there was another.

Also I don't feel mentioning that he had previous charges is victim blaming.
Especially when we are ask by friends to fund the victims family so quickly. We all realize that a family was left behind and will need help, to ME, it's a bit like trying to get the funding started before any negative about the victim can come out.
I also agree that past criminal involvement etc is revelavent. Was he killed because of a a past activity, something he knew , drugs, all kinds of things come to mind after viewing his friends etc. Something as stupid as the "rapper" was upping his street cred ? One of the men accused has a 'brother' that talks about 'the life' and the gang violence and all the friends they have lost on his FB page. He even lists them. Who knows. We tend to hang out with ppl we share similar interests with.
I would rather be told the truth about any individual than be fed the sugar coated, better for the family & fundraising version. I know a lot wont agree .
Does it mean he didn't love his wife and the kids ? Of course not.

 

[deugirtni]

Whois Deug ?

Anyway yes.. exactly my point.. does that statement indicate that one or more of the 3 children aren't necessarily NL's wife's chidlren, even though they have reportedly been together for 15 years?

should be posted on the Jessica Newman thread but here seems good too; JN's father/stepmother takes care of her children that she had with KL. This was gleaned from her stepmothers FB page.

something in Deug's post made me think of this.

 

[deugirtni]

Another thing I'm wondering about is, from NL's FB when his wife posted the 'reward' message:

"We want information on the vehicle he left with Cody in "

This makes me wonder if the other fellow who has been arrested, was kind of caught in the wrong place at the wrong time (by providing the wheels) and became involved that way? ie he obviously must have been the one to have the wheels.. while Cody was known to be with NL already ("He was last seen with Cody K Bauer at a house party.") Then Cody blocked NL's wife from being able to contact him on FB. And the other fellow with the wheels has no prior convictions (at least in Alberta).

I found an obit for what appears to be Kristopher Goerzen's grandfather, who died only one month ago, on March 6, 2015. In the obit it says the grandfather's wife died in 2013, and that his grandson moved in with him on Feb.28, 2014. Perhaps it was his grampa's car he was driving. If this is the same Kristopher Goerzen, he was an only child, and his father was an only child as well.

http://www.sfh.ca/fh/obituaries/obituary.cfm?o_id=3000679&fh_id=13823

http://www.genealogy.com/ftm/o/l/f/John-Olfert/WEBSITE-0001/UHP-0387.html

 

[OutOfTheDarkness]

I find it odd those espousing the virtue of keeping information from the public, are doing so in a forum that searches for more answers, primarily because main stream media does not provide proper details fast enough.

I understand the need for accurate information, but we are in a day and age of instant information. The time has come where we should have more access, not less. We should all be concerned if unappointed, unelected, so called ethical police withhold information because of timing.

The public doesn't need to be saved from itself. The public needs to be educated... and the more information that is provided, the better educated and worldly the general population becomes.

Do we need to know what the possible motivation was behind a rape? Does the question pop into your mind when you read the report? And yes... perhaps a background in prostitution is relevant, but a vast majority of the population is mature enough to realize that the victim may or may not have been prostituting at the time... which creates the realization that perhaps prostitution should not necessarily be a career choice, especially for vulnerable people. That's how change begins.

Murder? Motivation is the first thing that pops into your head, and stating the public record is just that. Interpret it how you want. In this case, we don't know if he was involved in anything, but the knowledge of the public record helps everyone speak more freely about the possibilities, and can give everyone a direction to search for the possible truth.

Personally, I don't need to be protected from my own thoughts.

 

[debsy99]

-I noticed that when it was reported the 2 incidents were related, ie the report of someone being beaten, and then that the guys in the vehicle were charged with NL's murder... it stated that a large amount of blood was found.. and this was after the 2 guys' arrests.. so it reminded me of the exact opposite being reported in the Nathan O'Brien case, where LE refused to state that blood was found, or how much of it was found. Wonder why it's ok to report it in one case but not another. ("Springbank and police said an assault reported at a highway underpass near Cochrane the next morning, where they reportedly found a large amount of blood, was connected.")

The difference is NL is one person. In the Likness case they had 3 people's blood they had to identify and determine how much of each was there before they could declare them deceased. Also they had not yet descended on DG and his property. When they found the blood of NL in the car they also had their suspects.

 

[deugirtni]

OOTD.... I have to agree with you... but.... I find that I am appalled when I read newspaper stories about some crime that was committed, and then perhaps also a story about someone being arrested.. in Canada say... where we have 'innocent until proven guilty'... and the public commenting on the newspaper stories.. I seriously find it revolting. It's like most of the people who write in to express their comments are sheep, completely believing whatever is written, and completely making up their minds as to what exactly happened, and they're screaming for the person (perhaps the person charged, or on trial, or whatever) to be executed. It gives me an inkling as to what it must have been like in the 'olden days' when our country had public hangings or however it was done.. I can just visualize all those people screaming for the person to be executed there too.. that is when the person was already ruled to be guilty. But in newspaper stories.. we're counting on so much.. that the reporter heard it right.. that the cop said it right.. that all of them all heard and saw and know the same things, but yet discrepancies.. all over the place.. and the reason we have trials here, is for usually a jury to hear the ENTIRE case, and ALL of the facts.. not just the little few that are reported in a story.. perhaps by a somewhat biased reporter? And so yes.. I suppose when I think about it, I think it is unfair for the dead guy's past criminal record to be published on the day his murder is announced, before his body is even retrieved yet... because of how all of what I see as 'stupid people' will jump up and down and say, 'see, that is why he was murdered, he was a criminal himself'.. and it makes me feel really sad, because... we don't even know yet whether those things had ANY bearing at all on why he was murdered, or what he was currently involved in.
Call me controlling. I too, want to know ALL the details, and decide for myself. I just hate it when I see the boatloads of people jumping at theories as being fact, when they're not fact, and they don't know everything yet, etc.
So... if someone wants to help out this woman and her 3 kids... they might change their minds if they see that the husband/father could have potentially brought this upon himself through his lifestyle choices? I would feel so bad if that was the case also.

 

[deugirtni]

So when they got their suspect, why not just say, 'there was a LOT of blood found in the home'?

The difference is NL is one person. In the Likness case they had 3 people's blood they had to identify and determine how much of each was there before they could declare them deceased. Also they had not yet descended on DG and his property. When they found the blood of NL in the car they also had their suspects.