This question will produce intense debate because different people have different ideas about what a “right” is. How does one determine if a right exists? My opinion is I have a right to get hot oil massages from Helen Hunt, but both Ms. Hunt and Mrs. Bricker seem to have strongly differing opinions.
How do we determine whether something is a right?
I’m glad you showed - I was wondering if you had any insight/research into what guidelines there may be on something like this. I used “right” in a casual sense, and knew I would draw lots of definitions.
I would have put it in General Questions, but was also curious about why people felt like it was their business to know every detail about an incident like this.
Sateryn76, please address the fact that we have already established that some information should indeed be made public, while other, more personal things are not really necessary. Do not constantly disregard these as
Things like EMS calls and police reports are usually public anyways, aren’t they? Even if no is charged with a crime?
You have heard of that Constitution thingie, right?
The thingie that specifically says its not to be taken as an enumeration of all rights?
Yes, but it clearly enumerates some of them.
I’m 99% certain that EMS calls would not be a public record in any way due to privacy regulations.
On the other hand, Sheriff calls and responses are usually printed in the local news paper under a listing like “Police Blotter” (And, it isn’t printed because they HAVE to print it. It’s printed because it is gossip that sells papers.)
IF the gun shot didn’t break any laws (and the OP said they didn’t), then there is no ‘right to know’. Certainly people love gossip, but so far -in the US- there is no legal requirement to satisfy it.
I find it funny that the person who posted this gossip onto Facebook is now the person who feels there is no “right to know”.
They’re apparently public in most states.
Is one of those the right to know the source of gunshots?
This is a profoundly basic philosophical question, and not one that I think needs to be dredged up at every discussion, any more than we need to ask Lacanian questions about the deconstruction of language in every discussion. As the thread up to this point shows, we can discuss the issue without arguing from first principles.
Yes, when it could be an indication of a crime. The Constitution gives us the right to form government which looks out for the public interest.
Well, I stand corrected. That was public because the 911 system was used. I didn’t think about the idea of someone using 911 to call for an ambulance. I guess it is only the ambulance company employees and hospitals that are bound by privacy regulations.
Wonder how long it will be before local news paper web sites put the 911 calls up online for people to listen to. Now, that would be some good link-bait. 
+1
Were people really saying they have a right “to know every detail”? There’s an enormous difference between that and people disagreeing with “it was not a crime, and it was personal and none of our business.”
Wow. Relax, man…I’m taking an informal opinion poll of what people think should be made public. :dubious:
I’m not sure that any information should be made public in this type of situation, beyond assurances that the situation was handled and everyone is now safe, and should continue to be safe from that guy. What do you think should be made public by the officials? At what point do you draw the line?
Do you think it’s appropriate to tell everyone in the neighborhood that this guy tried to kill himself? And you haven’t addressed my concerns about what happens after that - should people be informed that he’s on a psych hold for three days, and then he’s returning to that home? And how about updates on his follow up psych sessions and his likeliness of trying again? After all, we need to be safe, right?
It sounds like you agree that it is public business.
I posted the circumstances and the basic facts, but people wanted to know more and more about it. Like why he wanted to do it, what happened to him medically and what the future held for their neighbor. And not in a way that indicated they were concerned for him.
Maybe they were looking for
No, the thread shows merely a sequence of people asserting certain things are, or are not, rights. I suppose that qualifies as a discussion, but without a basic agreement on how we determine what is, and is not, a right, this “discussion” is simply people offering up their opinions on the issue.
Of course, we’re in the correct forum for that, so the error is mine.