A drunken panhandler threatened to kill a man who had come out of a business on Franklin Street and asked him to move along Saturday night.
Fifty-year-old Miguel Barrada was arrested and charged with assault with a death weapon after the victim told police Barrada had pulled a knife on him.
“The individual was intoxicated and panhandling,” said Chapel Hill Police Lt. Kevin Gunter.



Comments
We are all hurt when our
Fri, 10/31/2008 - 14:22 — Jesse DeConto (not verified)We are all hurt when our sense of security is compromised. I certainly don't want to be stabbed, but I don't want to be threatened with a knife either. Like it or not, panhandling is a news topic in Chapel Hill. I thought it was particularly important given the recent news that panhandling may be down. The headline was strictly factual -- nothing more, nothing less.
Panhandling is news topic in Chapel Hill- what is the connection
Sun, 11/02/2008 - 20:28 — Anonymous (not verified)First, thank you very much for taking the time to respond.
Your assertion that "we (I assume society) are all hurt when our sense
of security is comprised" is true. But I guess I fail to
understand the connection you seem to be making.
Are you implying that there is some connection between panhandling and
violent crimes? In this case it seems like the fact that the alleged attacker
was under the influence was more relevant than his being a
panhandler.
I am sure you are aware under the SBJ Code of Ethics that journalists should
avoid stereotyping those of different social status. How was Mr. Barrada, a
panhandler, necessarily connected to how he allegedly behaved? To be clear, my
problem is the use of the occupation in the headline. I still contend
that this was unnecessarily inflammatory and opportunistic. I understand
that as a general practice mentioning a person’s occupation in the actual
report is probably pretty normal. Including it in the title might also
make sense if the person held a public position (e.g. elected official) or if
somehow the occupation had some connection to the reported incident (e.g.
soldier suffering from PTSD).
Simply put, if you think panhandling is a news topic inChapel and you have reasons to doubt recent reports thatFranklin St. is a danger
Hill
panhandling may be down then write about it and demonstrate it. If panhandling
on
to our security then again write about it and demonstrate why.
Professional journalism is critical to our society. While I understand the
need for newspapers to expand their media to blogs this should NOT compromise
your responsibility as a professional journalist. The only thing that separates
Orange Chat from other blogs is the professional responsibility you bring to your
position.
I respect the work you do and I appreciate this opportunity to voice my
opinion.
This seems like inflamatory
Thu, 10/30/2008 - 21:52 — Anonymous (not verified)This seems like inflamatory oportunistic journalism to me. The title of this blog is pure sensationalism. Shame on you Jesse! If the alleged attacker was not a panhandler you would not mention his occupation nor would you even write up a special blog entry. This would of ended up buried in the police blog as it should have been.
Was the victim hurt in some way by the alleged attacker? If so, did he go to the hospital? What happened to responsible journalism? If you want blog try Orange Politics...you are supposed to be a journalist.
Anonymous is right on!
Fri, 10/31/2008 - 17:34 — elvisboy77Since Chapel Hill does not have a homeless problem.
Nice overreaction, anonymous. It is newsworthy regardless of who it was. No more or less so if it was the Mayor or someone.
Go out, Vote and chill out. And stay anonymous, thanks!