Tweet
THE SHOTS 'SEEN' BY THE GOVERNOR
June 6 2013
Those who read the Western authoritative mass media websites,
probably, have noticed that in the message of any crime, even if
it is obvious who committed the crime, there are some reservations
made in the description: "according to the investigation", "according
to law enforcement officials", allegedly (as if presumably), and so
on. Thus, solid media keeps from assuming the role of prosecutor and
respects the presumption of innocence of the suspected. We do not
have such culture, starting from official messages of law enforcement
authorities. In a type of programs like "02â~@³, it is directly said
that so-and-so entered, broke, stabbed, stole and fled making an
action stipulated by given clause of given Article of the Criminal
Code. But wait, such a claim can be made by a court only. On June 2,
shamshyan.com website was the first (or one of the first) to announce
about the shootings in Goris. The material was obviously one-sided
and extremely beneficial for the Governor of Syunik Marz. Killed
and seriously injured Budaghyan brothers were spoken about in an
unacceptable tone, i.e. with "hot heads", drunk. In short, Surik
Khachatryan's hypothesis was completely introduced in that narration,
which he presented yesterday at the café of "Marriott" hotel.
'Piratical attack' qualification, which he called, as I understand,
is also a legal category. In this case, it turns out that Budaghyan
brothers attacked the Governor's house and not on at the Governor.
Let's assume it is a preliminary hypothesis, but why it is put
forward by a man who was deep asleep during all those events. In
addition, in case of a piratical attack, a normal citizen applies law
enforcement officials, and not opens a fire with weapons illegally
kept in the house and through "bodyguards" of unknown status. But the
most surprising was the statement made yesterday by Syunik Governor's
Office, which described the video of cameras at the Governor's house,
which the Governor's staff (who exactly?) had allegedly seen. Here
there might be three versions. Immediately after the incident, the
governor's staff had come especially to Goris from Kapan, watched
the video after which it was confiscated as tangible evidence. Or, in
the preliminary investigation body has invited the Governor's staff
to Yerevan and has shown the confiscated video and allowed them to
describe it in the message. Or, the most probably, the Governor, who,
allegedly, was temporarily suspended from his duties has dictated his
hypothesis to his own staff, which later became a statement. Here, one
of the primary role-players of such case, being at large, influences
of the investigation. Aram ABRAHAMYAN
Read more at: http://en.aravot.am/2013/06/06/154696/
© 1998 - 2013 Aravot - News from Armenia
From: A. Papazian
June 6 2013
Those who read the Western authoritative mass media websites,
probably, have noticed that in the message of any crime, even if
it is obvious who committed the crime, there are some reservations
made in the description: "according to the investigation", "according
to law enforcement officials", allegedly (as if presumably), and so
on. Thus, solid media keeps from assuming the role of prosecutor and
respects the presumption of innocence of the suspected. We do not
have such culture, starting from official messages of law enforcement
authorities. In a type of programs like "02â~@³, it is directly said
that so-and-so entered, broke, stabbed, stole and fled making an
action stipulated by given clause of given Article of the Criminal
Code. But wait, such a claim can be made by a court only. On June 2,
shamshyan.com website was the first (or one of the first) to announce
about the shootings in Goris. The material was obviously one-sided
and extremely beneficial for the Governor of Syunik Marz. Killed
and seriously injured Budaghyan brothers were spoken about in an
unacceptable tone, i.e. with "hot heads", drunk. In short, Surik
Khachatryan's hypothesis was completely introduced in that narration,
which he presented yesterday at the café of "Marriott" hotel.
'Piratical attack' qualification, which he called, as I understand,
is also a legal category. In this case, it turns out that Budaghyan
brothers attacked the Governor's house and not on at the Governor.
Let's assume it is a preliminary hypothesis, but why it is put
forward by a man who was deep asleep during all those events. In
addition, in case of a piratical attack, a normal citizen applies law
enforcement officials, and not opens a fire with weapons illegally
kept in the house and through "bodyguards" of unknown status. But the
most surprising was the statement made yesterday by Syunik Governor's
Office, which described the video of cameras at the Governor's house,
which the Governor's staff (who exactly?) had allegedly seen. Here
there might be three versions. Immediately after the incident, the
governor's staff had come especially to Goris from Kapan, watched
the video after which it was confiscated as tangible evidence. Or, in
the preliminary investigation body has invited the Governor's staff
to Yerevan and has shown the confiscated video and allowed them to
describe it in the message. Or, the most probably, the Governor, who,
allegedly, was temporarily suspended from his duties has dictated his
hypothesis to his own staff, which later became a statement. Here, one
of the primary role-players of such case, being at large, influences
of the investigation. Aram ABRAHAMYAN
Read more at: http://en.aravot.am/2013/06/06/154696/
© 1998 - 2013 Aravot - News from Armenia
From: A. Papazian