So if there is indeed a "video" of the incident "circulating," why is it not included in your story? It is in the public domain!

Copycat assailants. Teens see other teens commit these types of assaults and do the same same.

How do you stop it? Make an example of every teen, or group of teens, that exhibit this type of behavior. It’s the only way.

The lawlessness out on the streets exist because there are little to no consequences. The problem is, much of the general public wants to look the other way and make excuses for those who commit violent crime.

No consequences more crime.

"No consequences more crime." Add to that the current penchant for "protecting" any number of "special groups" from identification. Rather than leaving out mugshots of those under arrest, they should be on the front page of the paper! They are a matter of public record. We have fallen to the untenable position of caring more about the "so-called rights" of the accused, than the protection of society as a whole. And let's stop with over using the word "alleged," when the facts don't warrant.

And Now This:

BART police said they have a suspect in custody after riders reported a man slashed a passenger with a cleaver on Wednesday in an alleged attempted robbery.

The incident happened on board an eastbound train near West Oakland Station at 1:03 p.m., according to BART spokesperson James Allison.

BART Police officers say Charles Johnson, 24, of San Francisco stabbed a 25-year-old man with a cleaver-style knife as the victim ran away from Johnson on the train.

Johnson attempted to flee with the victim’s backpack after exiting the train at West Oakland, but officers apprehended him without incident and recovered the weapon and the victim’s backpack, BART's interim police chief Kevin Franklin said in a statement.

@Paul Clark...while posted pics of the assailants would be informative, the perpetrators are minors and protected from various police/public disclosures.

Disclosing the race and ethnicity of the young assailants involved in crimes could also be perceived as racist by modern-day progressives.

On Paul Clark's question about the video, we disagree with the notion that original media posted to social media is automatically public domain free to publish across professional publications without permission. We have viewed one video in this case (of mixed quality, which is a factor for us too, I might add), but we would need the permission of the owner of the video before even considering publication.

Much like if we share an original photograph or video on social media, we'd expect a request for permission and proper attribution before another organization publishes our original work, we do not republish another person's visual media without such confirmation. Of course in this case, not unlike the Pleasanton Library fight video several months ago, we also have considerations about whether the victim or underage assailant(s) are identifiable for juvenile privacy reasons (or any violent crime survivor for that matter). It did appear the assailants were masked in this situation.

Hold your horses Jeremy. Forget about the video for a moment.

Your paper has made it a policy of not publishing the names of suspects after they have been arrested. Yet, I can find the name of an arrestee from other news sources rather quickly. Why is that?

Yet ANOTHER SRVUSD employee arrested on sexually assaulting a student. How many more of these before the administration and board take responsibility for the culture they created where student safety doesn't matter and background checks aren't as important as "equity?"

Agree with Malcolm.

I grew up in Palo Alto, and I know why this paper doesn't print names. That's the way he wants it.

The beating of this student is sad. Minors should be protected. Adults - print the names. The heck with protecting the "alleged" suspect.

Mr. Walsh's position is a sound one and I support his decision of descretionary reportage.

Releasing the offending minors' names and ages is far less important than reportage of the incident per se.

This approach reduces the possibility of any innuendos and potentially racist sentiments.

@Feda

We are not talking about juveniles. We are talking about adults.

@Freda

We are talking about adult suspects not juveniles.

You can google Embarcadero Media policy on arrests. And if you don't want to look it up, their policy is to not print names/mugshots until the District Attorney has filed charges. With the exception of certain cases (public figures, etc.).

He defends his policy with his readers on Palo Alto Online all the time.

And like I said, I can find out the name of a suspect from other news sources rather quickly. Walsh can defend his policy all he wants; I'm just stating the differences.

It's Bill Johnson's policy (owner of Embarcadero Media). Do you really think Jeremy is going to override someone who has owned Embarcadero Media since 1979? I think names of adults should be printed too but I don't own the paper. I just read it. You asked "why" ("why is that?") and I told you why.

@ Mr. Hex:
The news media described the assailants as being teens from Dublin and the altercation may have been racially motivated based on prior incident.

I endorse the Embarcadero Media policy of witholding names until charges are officially filed.

@Mr. James

Sir, as I stated before, I was talking about ADULT suspects, not juveniles. The Embarcadero Newsgroup will not publish the name of adult suspects before they are charged with a crime by the district attorney. I disagree with that largely based on the fact that other news publishing companies will state the suspects name before being charged with a crime.

Newspapers refuse to print names of suspects until the DA files charges because they want to avoid falsely accusing someone and creating legal liability for the newspaper. I agree that adult suspects should be named, but if I owned a newspaper, I don't know that I'd print the names. Not at the risk of being sued. Let other papers take the risk.

Mr. Hex...in America, arrestees and suspects are presumed innocent until proven guilty and the burden of proof rests with the accuser or the prosecution.

This is what differentiates the American judicial system from that of Great Britain where the burden of proving one's innocence rests with the accused.

County DAs vary as to their prosecution of certain criminal cases.

If the violations are considered minimal or inconsequential, some DAs will opt not to prosecute the case or seek a dismissal if the defendant pleads no contest. This in turn saves taxpayer dollars which is a sound fiscal decision.

Various diversion programs and probation options reduce the overcrowding of jails which also cost a lot money to operate.

Arrest records are public information, and the First Amendment of the US Constitution allows the press to publish these public records. Arrests are considered newsworthy and, therefore, the press is free to accurately report them.

@Malcom Hex...the reportage is optional and at the discretion of the publisher or media outlet.

Some arrests should be made public if they involve public safety but others can easily be disregarded or relegated to NextDoor gossip.

Arrests are public information, but someone could sue for libel. It doesn't mean they'd prevail, they'd have to prove damages. Waiting until the DA has filed charges protects the newspaper.

@Jennifer

Wrong. If a suspect is arrested by the police for an alleged crime, that is a fact. As long as the media reports only the fact that someone was arrested, and nothing more, then any claim of harm by the arrestee is moot.

As I stated before, the press has every right to report an arrest made by law enforcement. As stated before: Arrest records are public information, and the First Amendment of the US Constitution allows the press to publish these public records. Arrests are considered newsworthy and, therefore, the press is free to accurately report them.

At issue is not whether or not the press has the right to publish the name of an arrestee by this news source. You made that an issue, not me. The arrestee cannot sue for libel unless he/she can prove harm. And reporting the name of an arrestee is not harm as covered under the first amendment.

"An arrestee cannot sue for libel unless he/she can prove harm." (Hex)

"It doesn't mean they'd prevail. They'd have to prove damages." (Jennifer)

ANYONE can sue. Whether or not you prevail depends on whether or not you can prove damages. Richard Jewell comes to mind.

The issue is every newspaper is entitled to their policy. If you want to call the shots, buy your own newspaper.

@Jennifer

You came up with the “anyone can sue” tag, but that is a forgone conclusion. In other words, I didn’t use that defense because everyone already knows that. You also stated that every newspaper is entitled to their own policy. Well guess what Jennifer, everyone knows that too. You’re barking to the wrong carnival over law that has been established. What you have issue with is that I don’t agree with this paper’s policy. But while we’re at it, you mentioned the Richard Jewell case.

Richard Jewel didn’t sue the media because the media listed him as a person of interest. Richard Jewel sued the media because the media LIED that he may have planted a bomb.

The news media focused aggressively on Jewel as the presumed culprit, labeling him a "person of interest". The media portrayed Jewell as a failed law enforcement officer who might have planted the bomb so he could "find" it and be a hero. Stop right there. See? The media LIED. That’s what got the media into trouble. And keep in mind, he was never listed as a suspect, only a person of interest. See the difference?

Jewell sued the Atlanta Journal-Constitution because, according to Jewell, the paper's headline ("FBI suspects 'hero' guard may have planted bomb") Boom! That’s why Jewel sued.

Big difference between naming an arrestee in the media vs lying about the arrestee’s alleged crime.

Maybe the paper is avoiding citing assailant discriptions and names due to woke policies.

Given all of the tragic school-related incidents, shouldn't the doors be locked to those outside of the classroom?

I also read about it here https://essaypapers.reviews/

Responsibility for this assault rests with the school district who should be providing better student protections.

To Bill Rafferty:

You've "broken the code!" Here in California, the state has "devolved" from its former place thirty years ago or more as being #1 in the nation in any metric you'd care to mention, to being 49th or 50th. We now are a Kakistocracy, "Government by the least suitable or competent citizens of a state!" So it's not surprising that this "newspaper," run by people from outside the area, is here to "help" with putting forward the "narrative of the Kakistocrats." Nothing to see here, just move along now!