CORRECTION to “Moore’s bodyguard” story
Welcome Instapundit readers. Thanks for the link, Glenn!
I received this in relation to the story about Mike’s bodyguard being arrested with an illegal weapon. Never let it be said that we will willingly spread false information or fail to correct a mistake.
Dear Moorewatch Editors:
Our firm employs Patrick Burk.
Fox News has now removed the link for this story from their home page; their original story contained several errors (below). We want to be certain you are aware of the appropriate corrections.
I know that Fox News editors must rely upon others when preparing their stories, and I offer with no judgment that their story titled “Michael Moore’s Bodyguard Arrested on Airport Gun Charge” contains several errors, including its entire headline.
Please correct the errors in your story below as soon as possible, because, as you are aware, the errors reach an ever-widening audience with each passing minute - and will predictably be picked up by other news agencies.
Our full-time employee, Patrick Burk, is not “Michael Moore’s bodyguard.” Accordingly, the headline in the Fox News Web site story is false and misleading.
If you believe Patrick Burk was ever assigned to protect Michael Moore, or any number of other public figures, you might accurately report that “A bodyguard who was once assigned to protect Michael Moore...”
You could as accurately say “A bodyguard that was once assigned to protect President Clinton,” because Patrick Burk has also been assigned to protect President Clinton in the past - but you wouldn’t be accurate if you said “President Clinton’s Bodyguard.”
Patrick Burk is not Michael Moore’s bodyguard, nor was he protecting Michael Moore or in any way involved with Michael Moore on Wednesday night, when he (Burk) was checking in at JFK for a flight to Los Angeles.
When checking in for the flight, Patrick Burk voluntarily advised United Airlines that he was transporting an unloaded, locked firearm in his checked luggage, precisely as regulations require, and not “carrying” a weapon, as your story inaccurately reports. Advising the counter ticket agent is a routine procedure for police officers and security professionals. In this case, a Port Authority officer decided to arrest Patrick Burk on the charge that he is not licensed to carry a firearm in New York City.
The Fox web site headline contains an error not present in the story. The headline indicates that Patrick Burk was arrested on an “airport gun charge.” He was not. The charge involves having a firearm without a New York City License to carry it. On that note, Patrick Burk was not carrying a weapon on his person (only locked in his baggage), and the police do not allege that he was carrying a weapon on his person, as your story implies.
Police, security professionals, sportsmen, and citizen gun owners who fly on the Nation’s airlines are legally bound to advise the airlines of firearms in their checked baggage - and the firearms are transported just like any other baggage.
The Fox News story also says Patrick Burk was carrying “an unlicensed firearm.” Please correct that error. Patrick Burk’s firearm is legally registered to Patrick Burk - it is not “unlicensed.” Patrick Burk is licensed to carry a firearm in several States, and a court will determine if any charge is appropriate for Patrick Burk in this matter, which involves New York City.
Though I realize a Michael Moore connection would be of interest to your web site, Patrick Burk is not Michael Moore’s bodyguard, and has never been employed by Michael Moore.
An important note for you is that Patrick Burk is not a public figure and even the smallest inaccurate detail that is widely disseminated could predictably interfere with his ability to pursue his profession. Patrick Burk is a former Marine who served with distinction in an elite and specialized Marine unit, and he protected, among others, then-President Clinton.
Our firm (www.gavindebecker.com) provides protective coverage for public figures and others, and Patrick Burk is a leading professional in his field.
I highlighted in red below the specific errors where they appear in the Fox News story.
Please let me know that you have received this email, and if you need further information or need to reach our firm, please call (redacted), and ask for (redacted).
Sincerely-
Gavin de Becker
So there you have it...a detailed explanation of the event and a refutation of the Moore connection.
I would take issue with the repeated use of the term “your story” in this letter. It was not “our story.” It was a news story that we passed along to our readers. We were not the primary source. As blog writers, all we can do unless we *are* the primary source is repeat the news as we find it and add our commentary.
That having been said...let me call attention to Patrick Burk. The writer of this email is spot on when he said that we should not disparage Mr. Burk professionally. If the events leading to the charge are as described in this email are even 75% accurate, and knowing the Port Authority’s overreaction to firearms I think that’s a pretty good possibility, then Mr. Burk is not necessarily at fault. Whatever the case may be, it’s up to a judge, not us. While I urge the security company in question to remember that we at Moorewatch are not responsible for the readers comments, I would also urge the readers to consider that Mr. Burk is in fact a security professional, and just as we get upset when mainstream media ruins the security of a military mission, so should we be upset if we (meaning the readership of Moorewatch) were to destroy the security of a private situation.
Now we have the company’s side of events on the record.
As for the issue that we raised, the hypocrisy of Moore...in my opinion it still stands. It goes back to the first time we heard that Moore was hiring armed guards. He considers his own safety paramount, and feels that a weapon can protect him, but he doesn’t want the average American to have that same protection. The argument that can be made is “Well you can hire a bodyguard.” No, most of America can’t hire someone to watch over them 24 hours a day. It flies in the face of reason and logic to expect such a thing. We’re each responsible for our own personal safety. Since we cannot afford to hire armed guards...we arm ourselves. That is the very essence of the Second Amendment.
P.S. I put a phone call in to the company and as of the time of this posting have not yet received a reply. I informed the I would be issuing this correction, so I may not receive a call back, but if I do, rest assured I will report the results to you all ASAP.
Update
As of 8:20 PM Eastern, Fox News still has the story up on their website. Completely irresponsible. Para and I were on the phone earlier and I reminded him of a conversation we had a few weeks ago where he made the point to me that it was getting impossible to trust any reporting anymore. This just drives it home. Who can you trust? No one. I guess that’s why we try so hard to make sure that we stay completely honest and that anything we put up here at the site can be verified by others. Allowing your words to be independantly verified is about the only way I know of to truly be trustworthy. That and make sure you are front and center about mistakes when they happen.
Also, I think people should be aware that dozens of news agencies are reporting this story. Perhaps a trip to Google News is in order for Mr. de Becker.
Update 2
See what happens when you try to be a smartass? I suggest Mr. de Becker visit Google News, and emailed him to that effect, and it turns out he has, and there is an explanaton for that as well:
When I wrote to you about Fox News being the only major organization to report their story as they did, that was many many hours ago - a Google search at that time netted two entries, an Ohio concealed weapons group and a web site out of India.
Also, the many many stories running now do not repeat Fox News’s inaccuracy that Mr Burk was arrested on a “an airport weapons charge,” nor that that he was “carrying a firearm,” nor did they all repeat incorrectly that he is “Michael Moore’s bodyguard.”
Almost all stories are based on an AP story that is closer to accurate when they use a phrase such as “a bodyguard who once protected...” - though they don’t add he also is a bodyguard who once protected President Clinton and many other people.
Color me corrected. Also, Mr. de Becker confirmed that it was a Port Authority police officer that made the arrest. Like the security company and probably Patrick Burk as well, I cannot for the life of me figure out how some Port Authority cop figures a licensed, trained professional presenting his weapon in accordance with all FAA rules deserves arrest. I think that is the story here, that and of course Fox’s ineptitude in reporting the whole thing.
Here’s the original Fox News story (apparently the source for the stories that appeared elsewhere), just for context:
Michael Moore’s Bodyguard Arrested on Airport Gun Charge
NEW YORK -Filmmaker Michael Moore’s bodyguard was arrested for carrying an unlicensed weapon in New York’s JFK airport Wednesday night.
Police took Patrick Burke, who says Moore employs him, into custody after he declared he was carrying a firearm at a ticket counter. Burke is licensed to carry a firearm in Florida and California, but not in New York. Burke was taken to Queens central booking and could potentially be charged with a felony for the incident.
RSS (Subscribe)