I am Facebook friends with Ryan Lanza | Hacker News Reader

I am Facebook friends with Ryan Lanza

salon.com

93 pointsevo_998 comments

When we built the net, we had great dreams about every person on the planet connecting to each other and all the information they might need to make their lives better.

What we're actually building is something more like a cross between a tavern, a opium den, and a public square. People hang out in various random emotional moods, all waiting for something to trigger them into acting like a mob.

I know that sounds like hyperbole, but it's real. We are creating a system for over-reacting in a big way. Sometime -- sometime soon - some innocent person is going to get killed by one of the internet mob phenomenons. It's a miracle it hasn't happened already.

The interesting question is: what happens then? Does the net somehow correct itself? Or do the swings get wilder and wilder, ending up in 2050 or so with little bits of the net attacking little other bits in widely strewn locations? (What would be the term for this? Internet gangs? New nation-states? Niche warfare?)

This. I think the author really highlighted this well at the end of the article:

"Social media purports to connect us but it often does the exact opposite. The barrier, the anonymity, the lack of accountability; all encourage the worst in people."

Perhaps because of the sheer number of people the internet has connected combined with the bell curve of asshole-ness, we think humanity is stupider than it is. Anonymity, unaccountability may certainly make things worse, but a small fraction multiplied by an insanely large number will still give us a lot of crazies.

The attacking between different factions already seems to be happening, witness the 4chan vs 9gag raids etc. People seemed to hold out this irrational hope that the internet would somehow make everyone engage at a higher intellectual level, that part was clearly wrong..

I guess that's the nice thing about the internet in some ways though, it pretty accurately reflects real life, though the stratification is much more pronounced.

Have you seen this ignite talk:

http://igniteshow.com/videos/flash-mob-gone-very-very-wrong

I think you may enjoy it.

Actually, this has already happened a few times. There are a number of suicidal people that posted on various networks about their problems and people egged them on. I think I remember the most vivid one being on bodybuilding.com

The internet is just a tool, nothing more. People are going to use it to do great things. Others are going to use it for stupidity.

You can go to a library and read Aristotle or Tolstoy, or you can read the latest romance novel or surf porn on one of the library computers.

Some use the internet to do amazing things, to come together and create, invent, and help society progress. Others play Farmville all day.

Like anything else, what you put in is what you get out.

RE: Facebook Groups

I've never understood the psychological reasons behind pointless social commentary during moments of tragedy such as this.

My social media streams were full of blather: "I feel bad for the parents and kids", "I hate school shooters", "I hate kid killers!!...ad nauseum. No kidding! There is a support group for people like you, it's called Everybody.

Why comment at all? Is it some coping mechanism? Do they feel as if they will be judged because they didn't publicly admonish the shooter?

Because if we let these events go by without comment, then we are bad people. If we take up the mantle and struggle against evil, then we are heroic.

That seems to be the thought process anyways.

I ended up making exactly one comment on the whole thing: "Not going to comment."

Some people feel an emotional identification with those at the centre of the event, and wish to communicate that with their social group so that they and their friends can support each other.

I don't do it either, but I don't particularly judge people who do. Everyone is different.

Before taking a crack at answering this for you, I'd like to know - how did you feel when you heard about the shooting? What was your reaction? Would you generally describe yourself as an empathic person?

I would say that I was/am sympathetic, not empathetic. I recognize that it's a tragedy for them, but I don't feel similar emotions.

I'm curious if the reason behind such vocalization is because very few people actually feel empathy. A facade for their feelings of joy/relief that such things didn't occur to someone they know.

I, as you probably guessed, don't have any children. I presume my feelings on the subject would be different if that weren't the case.

with respect (i am speaking retro-introspectively)- i cannot understand how recognizing that your feelings would change with perspective isn't enough in and of itself to change them.

to me, admitting your feelings would change with perspective is admitting you simply cannot relate to what these people are going through. if your lack of empathy is derived from the inability to relate- that seems awfully selfish.

but at the same time, "i cannot pretend to relate with what these people are going through" sounds refreshingly empathetic if you ask me.

I have a bit similar opinion to rekwah and I basically didn't feel anything. I think I have slightly above average empathy.

About 100 people die every minute by the way.

that's interesting, because i too hold a similar opinion to rekwah, and consider myself nearly emotionless. with the ability to feign empathy. and i was moved to tears.

"About 100 people die every minute by the way."

i dont think you need my help to realize why this comment is hilariously off base. i didn't cry because people died. you have a very strange perspective.

I didn't mention that I'm from Europe, that may be a factor in my "don't care about it" attitude.

Please explain why the second comment is of base. It's just a different perspective of looking at it.

I would personally describe myself as an empathetic person - but on hearing about the shooting I honestly couldn't care less. Terrible heinous crimes happen every day on a far greater magnitude than one school shooting.

Why should the world throw such an emotional hissy fit when 20 white kids are murdered versus when so many more are killed on a regular basis through war, starvation, and poverty?

so actually one of my favorite things about the United States is being able to send my 5 year old kid to school without worrying they'll die of war, starvation, or poverty.

not to lead your answer here; but, what- by your definition based in statistics- warrants empathy or sympathy? surely nothing? which by the way, i think is a fair point to defend as long as you're consistent. a loved one with cancer, for instance? hey, it happens all the time.

Because people want to demonstrate how compassionate they are. Everyone else is letting everyone know that they are praying for someone, then they should too, or else they are "bad."

The case of the mistaken identity of Neda Soltani in 2009 during the Iranian protests is worth reading:

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/magazine-20267989

> The whole thing happened in a matter of 12 days. In less than two weeks I had gone from being a professor of English literature, leading a very normal life, to a person who had to flee her homeland.

All because somebody mistook her facebook profile for someone else's

Wow.. speechless..

Ugh, I feel bad for the guy. His entire life will probably be tainted by this. Any future employer, friend, lover can and will find out about it through a simple Google search. He's probably the worst of after this incident; his brother a mass murder, his mother shot dead, him being tainted for the rest of his life...

With any luck the numerous libel/slander lawsuits will be enough to get him the help he is going to need to deal with this clusterfuck.

Ryan Lanza will have to deal with negative repercussions for something he didn't do, but there are 28 other people who are far worse off than he is.

Interesting.

> "He's probably the worst off [sic] after this incident"

Is pretty clearly false, but I guess my tone was offensive?

You got downvoted cause it's a pointless, bullshit thing to say.

Yeah, the 28 people his brother murdered have it worse. That still doesn't mean we can't talk about how irresponsible reporting and a general Internet lynch mob mentality make life shittier for people. That doesn't denigrate the memory of the victims, and it doesn't invite a comparison to their fates.

Edit: attribution error for shootings

> You got downvoted cause it's a pointless, bullshit thing to say.

You didn't downvote me, so unless somebody who did explained their reasons to you...

> Yeah, the 28 people his brother murdered have it worse. That still doesn't mean we can't talk about how irresponsible reporting and a general Internet lynch mob mentality make life shittier for people. That doesn't denigrate the memory of the victims, and it doesn't invite a comparison to their fates.

The comparisons were made in the comment I replied to, they seemed (and still seem) very wrong to me, hence the reply. As to the other topics you mentioned, I agree wholeheartedly.

You know, I reread the comment you're responding to, and the wording does seem to support the reading you gave it. I'm sorry for jumping so readily.

The comment was still incredibly pointless.

I wouldn't feel too bad for someone who gets to retire in their 20s, after the settlement checks start rolling in. He could probably start his lifetime vacation now, by getting a loan against the anticipated proceeds.

That's because you're an idiot. His mom is dead, he can't talk to his friends and his life is certainly in danger. His life is shattered, he can't buy a new one.

Nothing stops him from talking to his friends. Re his mom, I'm referring only to his loss of reputation. He's in danger from idiots; moving to a liberal area should help. He'll be able to afford some decent security in any case, like any multi-millionaire.

This is something I actually know a lot about, being his roommate and friend. The only way we can even vaguely have a conversation with him is through our respective FBI contacts. You have no clue how sequestered he is.

Moving to a decently liberal area doesn't change anything, if there's some crazy that wants you dead, they'll do a lot to make it happen.

He's not under arrest. Expect the situation to clear up. Think Richard Jewell; a lot of people surely wanted to do him harm too, for his initially suspected involvement in the Olympic Park bombing. But later he had no problems.

>But later he had no problems.

No problems, except for being dead of diabetes and heart disease. Certainly makes me wonder if the stress of being a wrongfully accused terrorist shortened his life.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2007/08...

Maybe that is what happened. Although he seemed to be in bad health before being accused. Many people don't care what others think about them. Hopefully Ryan Lanza is or can become one of them.

Connecticut is a relatively liberal state, and he lived in a small town with a low crime rate. Where do you suggest?

He'd likely be fine in Connecticut, when people have had some time to calm down.

Regardless of how those of us on Hacker News identify politically, your shot at conservatives is out of line. I identify liberally and even I see it as inappropriate. I'm not being hyperbolic when I inform you that comments and opinions like yours are the kind that will be the end of America and everything that we believe in as we know it. Political conversation in this country is a time bomb.

Beyond that, pretty much every comment you've left in this thread is cancerous, insensitive, and outright stupid, and I wish you'd stop typing. I mean that in the most respectful way.

just because you say something isn't hyperbolic, doesn't mean it's not. likewise, just because you say something is respectful, doesn't mean it is.

"liberal" and "conservative", as you don't seem to be aware, have meanings outside of United States politics.

I am aware, but since the advice was to move and the guy lives in America, I localized my answer.

Liberal is defined as "open-minded". It's not just a political party affiliation.

I don't think that there are any large settlement checks in his future. To prove libel, don't you have to show that the author intentionally published something they knew was false? Just because a journalist is sloppy or inept doesn't mean he's committed libel.

Richard Jewell got large checks from many media orgs who didn't know the info they were publishing was false. A decent jury will recognize when the media jumped the gun. They should probably wait a few hours before they potentially ruin an innocent person's reputation.

Not sure that's true. If someone gets crippled in a car accident and gets settlement money, "retiring" in their 20s is probably very small consolation.

Granted, Ryan Lanza is physically fine, but his mind and reputation will probably never be the same.

Of course his reputation will never be the same, that's why he gets to retire. I could shake off a lot of mental abuse in exchange for a 40+ year vacation.

Plain old mob mentality, something bad happened, no one likes it, the suspect is dead, someone must be punished, anyone tangentially related is fair game.

Might as well string up the person who sold him a pack of gum last week.

This type of thing is precisely why, after seeing what happened to Richard Jewell after the '96 Olympics bombing, when a tragedy like this happens, I try to stay clear of anything that mentions the killer's name/motivations/etc for a couple days until there is a clearer picture.

"I try to stay clear of anything that mentions the killer's name/motivations/etc for a couple days until there is a clearer picture."

A journalist with any shred of integrity should do the same.

24 hour news cycle. Gotta fill the time, and any shred of anything information-like helps add to the discussion.

Every time something happens, the networks fall over themselves to get out the new thing first, and inevitably fuck it up. Recall the Obamacare ruling, and how several networks reported it'd been overturned because they couldn't take the ten minutes to read more carefully.

Putting the information out there isn't the problem. It's reporting it as fact that causes problems. I was watching the BBC coverage of the shooting and pretty much everything new they reported was prefaced that it was speculation, picked up from a US network, or leaked to another network by an unknown source. They were able to fill without stating untruths as fact.

Of course they have logical reasons for acting unethically, just as a common thief has a logical motive for snatching purses. That doesn't make the behavior any less unethical.

Oh, I agree that it's unethical. And, frankly, detrimental to our society.

Is there a way to publicly shame the reporter ? Instead of just naming it as "cnn" or any other name without a face, it would be better to name the reporter and the editor. And also link to their Facebook page.

Next time it could keep other reporters in line.

"We have a problem with rushing to judgment."

This is the key statement, and the behaviour perpetuated and taught by news outlets. They should be held hugely liable for misinformation and lies that go out -- sure, they legally, in the U.S. at least, have been found to be allowed to lie, but that doesn't mean they aren't liable.

P.S. I somewhat hope Ryan Lanza's Facebook account was unsearchable prior to Facebook changing all accounts to being searchable - I'd like to see if any legal consequences could come of it.

Does anyone care what this must have done to him? He finds out by watching CNN at work, that his mother has been murdered, along with 20 small children & 6 adults, & that HE is being blamed for it. He is receiving hate mail on his FB page, people are threatening to kill him, all while he rides the business home alone. This is how he spends the first hour after finding out that his family is gone & that it was his little brother who killed his mother. And then the "kind" police officers escort him out in handcuffs for all the world to see. been one week since this tragedy & nowhere do I see anyone reaching out with kindness towards this 24 year old. The media could care less. He has the weight of all 28 victims on him. I cannot imagine his pain, fear, & intense sadness. So, when this country is asked to pray for those who lost loved ones, why in the name of God is he not being included? That is my question & I doubt that he would ever consider suing anyone, even though they deserve it. But I'll tell you what he deserves... grace, loving thoughts, & kindness, just as much as every else who lost someone they loved. My heart breaks for him.

I agree with you, This poor young mans life has just been turned around on him. I can't imagine what he is going through,all the question he must have. I do think he should sue and a meaningful gesture on his part would be to give the money back to the community in one way or another. I pray that he can get through this with Gods grace.

The lack of critical thinking skills is perhaps my biggest gripe with humanity, and one that I believe underpins, in one way or another, all of its other failings.

If everyone had perfect critical thinking skills, misreporting such as this would cause no harm. There would be no need for defamation laws.

A news organization would make an incorrect assertion, and instead of leaping to conclusions, people would interrogate the assertion, evaluate the supporting evidence themselves, and reserve judgment until the facts are clear.

In the meantime, if you can't help but discuss or act on information of questionable accuracy, qualify yourself appropriately. "If Ryan Lanza was the person responsible, he is a monster!", not "Ryan Lanza is a monster!", etc.

"riding the bus home", not business. Journalism today is NOT CNN or MSNBC, or FOX. It's the corporate heads who demand results... right now! Everything is faster, more, now. It doesn't matter if it's true, just that it is EXTREME. Even on Dateline, which aired that Friday night, they reported that Mrs. Lanza was the kindergarten teacher & that's why Adam killed all of "her" students. WRONG! Shut off the TV & wait for the early edition of the New York Times. That's about the only way to get "real" journalism anymore. At least they apologize when they're wrong.

"In the end, social media got to the answer of who Ryan Lanza is much more quickly than a dozen local reporters would have done. But social media also creates a world in which we are watching the investigation — and reporting — unfold in real time."

A local reporter, in this case the usage seems pejorative, might have wanted until they were certain before printing the name and therefore might not have needed a retraction. I would have respected them more if they just said that news moves fast and they make their money from ads so being the first mover improves their bottom line.

> We have a problem with rushing to judgment.

... says a guy who, in the wake of a tragedy, rushes to say that we need more gun control.

These two "rushings" are incomparable on many levels.

Yes. Rushing to judgment about Ryan Lanza affects one person. Rushing to toss away gun rights affects tens (hundreds?) of millions of people.

The way he put it is not exactly rushing to judgment. It was more like saying that "perhaps if there was greater gun control, this wouldn't happen".

Also, probability that his sentence affects anyone is basically zero.

> ... says a guy who, in the wake of a tragedy, rushes to say that we need more gun control.

Given that these things happen with a depressing regularity, it's hardly rushing to judgement at this point to say "we need to have a discussion about guns".

Where does he say that?

> There a lot of things we need to have a “national discussion” about in America — gun laws and access to mental health care being the two most important . . . . We’ve decided that access to guns is more important than our safety, that more guns equals safety

Sounds to me like a man who has made up his mind.

He doesn't say that we need more gun control, though. He has described the situation as he sees it, but he hasn't prescribed an answer, aside from a "national discussion", which by it's nature involves an exchange of opinions, not an answer from on high.

Gun control is (or was) a fairly settled issue. Even James Carville said, "I don't think there's a Second Amendment right to own a gun, but I think it's a loser political issue." The only reason to unsettle it is if you wanted to change it, and since it's considered a civil right by many Americans, that's a pretty big deal.

If you want to better understand that sentiment, just substitute any other Constitutionally guaranteed civil right for "guns". "We need to have a national discussion about the right to a fair trial by jury." How does that not sound sinister? It's fairly settled that we have fair trials by jury, or at least try our hardest, and it doesn't serve any good purpose to reopen the question.

In D.C. vs. Heller, all nine Supreme Court Justices agreed "there's a Second Amendment right to own a gun" (the so-called individual right, vs. the "collective right" that had been claimed for decades), they just split on if this meant anything (D.C.'s ban on new gun registrations was total, and they effectively banned the use of any grandfathered guns for self-defense).

It is now settled law, there's very little to have a "national discussion" or "conversation" about, especially since we all agree on minor details like: murder is wrong and is properly illegal, felons and the severely mentally ill have no right to own guns (although due to privacy issues it's very hard to do anything about the latter, and too many states like Pennsylvania refuse to report this to the feds), people should treat guns with respect, etc.

It's indeed a euphemism for gun restriction laws and an introduction of social pressure against gun owners to disarm advocated in national-level media. I am unsure of the origin but it seems to be a newly adopted phrase used to talk about gun restriction and mental health access in relation to the recent shooting, which is probably why you're only taking it at face value.

Obama was using this phrase before last week.

"We’ve decided that access to guns is more important than our safety, that more guns equals safety, or that it’s a settled political issue."

This clearly shows a desire for stricter gun laws.

Is there anyone who thinks that the weasel words of having a "national discussion" about guns could possibly mean anything other than "we need stricter gun laws"?

Consider me deluded, then. To me, it says "I think we need stricter gun controls, and I wish to discuss my desire with the nation as a whole in order to create a consensus about what we will do".

Politicians don't debate for the purpose of creating a consensus. They debate for the purpose of getting what they want.

Sometimes a consensus is a necessary prerequisite for getting what you want, but in politics it is never an end in itself.

On the front page of his website:

http://www.mattbors.com/

Ha! That too, hadn't seen that yet. Yeah, this guy isn't rushing to conclusions.

There's a world of difference between not jumping to conclusions based on partial facts, and making conclusions based on known facts.

We've all had the entirety of our lives to come to our current opinion of gun control and have the remainder of our lives to change that opinion; no rushing involved.

Many people have been in a rush these last few days.

To quote the Chicago Godfather (Mayor), while he was working for Obama, "You never let a serious crisis go to waste. And what I mean by that it's an opportunity to do things you think you could not do before."

Note he's fighting tooth and nail to keep Chicago "subjects" disarmed (can't call them citizens if they're disarmed, at least by historical use of the word), and keeps robosigning mid-6 figure checks to the other side when he loses; here's the latest: http://armsandthelaw.com/archives/2012/12/chicagos_latest.ph...

So? You picked out one thing that everyone has had their entire life to think about and conflated it with things that have happened since Friday.

(That I can get a downvote for pointing that out shows how irrational people are on this issue. They can't take a breath and realize that I probably lean toward their side.)

When did he say that?

Similarly, bemoaning hassling a guy's Facebook profile by writing linkbait based on being a hassling Facebook friend.

Events like this shooting always remind me of Goerge Carlin talking about entropy: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=egRgweL12Uc&feature=yout...

Watch it, it's really good.

From the linked through article on BuzzFeed:

> Media did not identify the "wrong Ryan Lanza." BuzzFeed, Gawker and Mediaite correctly reported on the Facebook profile of the person who turned out to be the older brother of the alleged gunman — and they did so when he was the person being identified by law enforcement to CNN as the shooter.

This is wrong in a few ways. First:

As I understand it, "identified by law enforcement" was some guy in the Connecticut State Police talking to the media without authorization. The designated media contact of the local police, Lt. Vance, was correcting misinformation that was perpetuated by the media and Internet all day. Ryan Lanza was only one of many "facts" that grew legs and ran around the planet, to borrow from Twain. There were so many rumors, many of them perpetuated by the awful "This Just In" live blog on CNN, that were just shown to be blatantly untrue less than an hour later.

I've seen "This Just In" get it so horribly wrong on stories in the interest of speed in the past, particularly with Hurricane Sandy and Twitter (like when they wrote about the stock exchange being flooded based on some Twitter troll, and all the networks ran with it). Real news organizations, like the old stalwarts of CBS & Co., like to wait for a double confirmation. It appears that "This Just In" is being treated as a confirm (since "CNN reported it") by many organizations, even though the bar for truth is abysmally low on that blog. They don't even retract, even though they have the capability. They leave the untruth published, but update later saying "earlier we reported a lie. Sorry 'bout that, it isn't true".

Second:

They didn't "correctly report on the older brother". Half of the developed world ran a story similar to "LOOK AT THE FACE OF THIS STONE COLD KILLER. HERE HE IS". Whatever BuzzFeed needs to tell themselves to sleep better at night, I guess.

Third:

There is an argument that has taken hold in Europe that we should never identify the killer, or omit their last name, in circumstances like this. I sympathize with it extensively, along with the notion that we shouldn't run 24-hour coverage on this to glorify the killer (a common complaint from criminal psychiatrists). If it were against the rules to identify a killer, this would have never happened.

This is why all news organizations should double-confirm before ever releasing a fact with as much gravity as this. Hell, double-confirm everything. The irresponsibility displayed by the media and the ease of which a life can be destroyed in the age of the Internet are simply too dramatic for rush decisions any more. We need to have a culture shift toward being acceptable to waiting a few minutes to be told something is going on, if it means we can be more sure that we're reporting the truth. What point is a fact that we know within seconds if it's not even a fact? If journalism is reporting untruths, what purpose does journalism have in the public interest?

I entirely blame CNN here, and "This Just In" specifically. They got somebody to talk to them in the State Police who didn't know what he was talking about, they ran with it, and they ruined this kid's life. I'd like to see "This Just In" closed entirely, and the Associate Producer that got the duty of updating the blog post that day apologize personally to Ryan.

There is a systemic disease developing inside CNN, completely due to the Web, and it's beginning to infect downstream media. Please, CNN producer if you're reading this (which you should be if you're searching for tech stories), be better.

Since you've worked in journalism, I had a question for you that I've been wondering about for a while.

Do you believe that journalistic standards have fallen over time in general, or is the latest rash of horrifically irresponsible reporting the actions of a few bad players, or has journalism always been this bad, and I'm just seeing the past through rose-tinted glasses?

I seem to remember a time when journalism was treated as a serious craft with serious responsibilities and obligations. Now every asshole with a Twitter account and a blog purports to "report" without assuming any of the responsibilities that come with journalism, including fact checking.

You nailed it toward the end. Journalism is struggling to catch up with instantness, and bloggers have muscled in and dirtied the field; the current decline, I think, started with 24-hour cable news and was only accelerated by the Internet. News channels airing opinion -- MSNBC, Fox News -- is also troublesome.

It's not entirely journalism's fault, either, as culturally we have begun to demand instant gratification and journalism responds as the market expects. Same with entertainment news. As Aaron Sorkin wrote, there is a debate between ratings driving content or content driving ratings -- sadly, too often, the former holds true.

They are supposed to double check--see Gertz v. Robert Welch, Inc.. When a person who is not a public figure is defamed, the plaintiff only has to show that the defendant was negligent in making his defamatory statements, rather than the standard of recklessness to which he would be held in a case involving a public figure.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gertz_v._Robert_Welch,_Inc.

I don't understand why law enforcement officials leak this stuff. Presumably they aren't benefitting financially (that would be highly illegal, and surely investigated?), and they aren't ever named publicly, so they don't even get fame out of it. So why risk your job like that?

You scratch a journalist's back, they'll scratch yours when the time comes.

Plus, there's always accidental slip ups.

I used to work in journalism. Half of the journalism empire is built upon looking out for people so they'll look out for you in the future.

It's a minor scene in The Insider, but at one point Al Pacino's real-life character, CBS producer Lowell Bergman, helps the FBI out by not investigating a story. Later, the person he helped at the FBI tips CBS off exclusively about the arrest of the Unibomber, and tells them where to be. I believe that story is at least somewhat based on reality, and I've seen similar ones play out constantly in the media.

"Thank you for the positive coverage on that embarrassing story for the department," and so on, and eventually cops become a fountain of leads.

> As I understand it, "identified by law enforcement" was some guy in the Connecticut State Police talking to the media without authorization.

I don't see how somebody from the state police, talking to the media, saying "Ryan Lanza is the name on the driver's license" does not constitute being "identified by law enforcement".

It may have been "erroneously identified by law enforcement" but that does not make "identified by law enforcement" a false statement, no matter how much you want it to be.

Because the word "identified" comes with special significance. It's a positive identification from the police as a matter of fact, and it's an official position. It carries weight and is reportable without the risk of libel. A low-level lieutenant who heard a name and then told the media to curry favor is not identifying. He's providing a lead, which must be confirmed from another source.

Compare: We are positively identifying the suspect as John Doe, who is in custody.

With: Hey, we are looking at John Doe as the suspect.

One is identification, the other isn't. It's a legally-important word and distinction. Again, I worked in the field, and your shot at the end about my personal bias was uncalled for and marred your otherwise good parry.

A Law Enforcement Officer, provided the IDENTITY of the suspect. There fore IDENTIFIED by law enforcement is semantically and connotatively correct. An identification was made, and it was made by a member of law enforcement.

People on the other end of the TV do not ponder whether the identification was a legally-important one or not. They only know, via both of your examples, that a cop said that I guy named John Doe is a suspect.

The divide between intent and reality is in important concept to grasp, especially when you finally put your web application in the hands of soccer mom's and office administrators.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com