4 ms·

If you read through the end, the claims were thrown out, except the claim that the officer was abused his wife, which there is some question of whether that's a

If you read through the end, the claims were thrown out, except the claim that the officer was abused his wife, which there is some question of whether that's actionable. Seems like the court is doing the reasonable thing.

deleted 3y ago
[deleted]
alex_lav 3y ago
Reasonable to who?
- ChicagoBoy11 3y ago
  To all the parties involved, I'd argue. It seems they were able to parse out all of the claims and readily dismissed the vast majority of the ridiculous stuff that the cops were claiming, while acknowledging that the assertion that the officer was a "wife abuser" could veer into defamation was plausible and merits a trial (where both sides are perfectly entitled to build their case). Seems reasonable!
  - alex_lav 3y ago
    This is a level of delusion I cannot fathom. I'm sorry you feel this way.
    - ChicagoBoy11 3y ago
      In earnest: Could you help lead me to a different perspective? Happy to seriously engage to see if there's a blind spot I'm missing
      - alex_lav 3y ago
        Well, first and most obviously, I suspect the teen that's being sued probably does not consider this recourse "reasonable", so "all parties involved" is probably untrue. But mostly, two armed men terrorized a 19 year old and are now attempting to sue this 19 year old for the meany-mean things that 19 year old said while being terrorized. Is that reasonable, really, to anyone? If someone is robbing your house and you say they probably beat their wife, should the robber be allowed to sue you? Other than a badge, what's the difference between these two scenarios?
    - bequanna 3y ago
      Legally, I think he’s right. Most of what the kid said was just harmless blowing off steam. But publicly claiming someone did something like best their wife when their is no proof is potentially defamation. The judge took the correct action. The law should work the same for and against everyone, regardless of how much you like them. Juries and Judges are the real wildcard. How would they interpret this?
      - autoexec 3y ago
        > But publicly claiming someone did something like best their wife when their is no proof is potentially defamation. Studies have shown that 40% of cops beat their wives, and other research suggests that DV doesn't get reported at all roughly half of the time, so the number of police officers beating their wives is going to be much greater than 40%. For any random police officer you could claim they beat their wives and be right more often than not. It's not an entirely unfair assumption to start with. This officer's ex had a protective order against him granted by the district court which was then extended on at least three occasions. It might not be proof of abuse, but it's pretty strong evidence. My guess is that this kid found information about the protective order and just got his terminology wrong, assuming that there was a conviction when there wasn't one. It's statistically likely that he wasn't wrong and abuse was taking place. Seems like the courts could give some slack to the teenager whose rights were violated by a corrupt cop who likely abused his ex even if there was never a conviction.
        bequanna 3y ago
        That’s not the point of statistics like that. We don’t assume guilt because something is plausible. That is the same as going around calling every man who looks creepy a pedo. You might be right once in a while, but that doesn’t entitle you to smear people without facts.
        autoexec 3y ago
        I'd agree that it would be totally wrong to throw this cop in jail for beating his ex without actual proof. A teenager's youtube video isn't a courtroom though and shouldn't require the same standards for proof. I'm just saying that it's a lot less unreasonable to accuse this cop of beating his ex than it would be to pick a random person on the street and accuse them of the same. He was clearly wrong about the conviction, there's a pretty good chance he wasn't wrong about the abuse. Maybe that's a good enough standard of evidence to demand from the youtube video of a justifiably pissed off 19 year old? It'd be best if he uploaded a correction, or even a corrected re-upload of his video, but I think it's fair to say that this kid has been screwed over by the legal system enough already. He should probably get a pass for getting the fact about the conviction wrong and not maintaining the highest levels of journalistic integrity in the youtube video documenting the violation of his rights.
wutwutwat 3y ago
I think the point isn’t the ruling but more so it’s the message the cops are sending to everyone else who might do similar things in the future. Imagine the intimidation knowing police officers are battling you in court, you know, those people who work for the same city that the entire courthouse staff does, who they see all the time as part of their jobs, and have long standing mutually “protect our own” relationships with. Cops work in the public. If the cop was charged with beating his wife or even just had the cops called (how would calling the cops on a cop work when they are coworkers?), that would also be public. There’s no invasion of privacy then. If it’s not true, it’s libel not invasion of privacy.
s1artibartfast 3y ago
Yeah, I'm not sure how people would prefer this resolving.

deleted 3y ago

[deleted]

alex_lav 3y ago

Reasonable to who?

ChicagoBoy11 3y ago
To all the parties involved, I'd argue. It seems they were able to parse out all of the claims and readily dismissed the vast majority of the ridiculous stuff that the cops were claiming, while acknowledging that the assertion that the officer was a "wife abuser" could veer into defamation was plausible and merits a trial (where both sides are perfectly entitled to build their case). Seems reasonable!
- alex_lav 3y ago
  This is a level of delusion I cannot fathom. I'm sorry you feel this way.
  - ChicagoBoy11 3y ago
    In earnest: Could you help lead me to a different perspective? Happy to seriously engage to see if there's a blind spot I'm missing
    - alex_lav 3y ago
      Well, first and most obviously, I suspect the teen that's being sued probably does not consider this recourse "reasonable", so "all parties involved" is probably untrue. But mostly, two armed men terrorized a 19 year old and are now attempting to sue this 19 year old for the meany-mean things that 19 year old said while being terrorized. Is that reasonable, really, to anyone? If someone is robbing your house and you say they probably beat their wife, should the robber be allowed to sue you? Other than a badge, what's the difference between these two scenarios?
  - bequanna 3y ago
    Legally, I think he’s right. Most of what the kid said was just harmless blowing off steam. But publicly claiming someone did something like best their wife when their is no proof is potentially defamation. The judge took the correct action. The law should work the same for and against everyone, regardless of how much you like them. Juries and Judges are the real wildcard. How would they interpret this?
    - autoexec 3y ago
      > But publicly claiming someone did something like best their wife when their is no proof is potentially defamation. Studies have shown that 40% of cops beat their wives, and other research suggests that DV doesn't get reported at all roughly half of the time, so the number of police officers beating their wives is going to be much greater than 40%. For any random police officer you could claim they beat their wives and be right more often than not. It's not an entirely unfair assumption to start with. This officer's ex had a protective order against him granted by the district court which was then extended on at least three occasions. It might not be proof of abuse, but it's pretty strong evidence. My guess is that this kid found information about the protective order and just got his terminology wrong, assuming that there was a conviction when there wasn't one. It's statistically likely that he wasn't wrong and abuse was taking place. Seems like the courts could give some slack to the teenager whose rights were violated by a corrupt cop who likely abused his ex even if there was never a conviction.
      - bequanna 3y ago
        That’s not the point of statistics like that. We don’t assume guilt because something is plausible. That is the same as going around calling every man who looks creepy a pedo. You might be right once in a while, but that doesn’t entitle you to smear people without facts.
        autoexec 3y ago
        I'd agree that it would be totally wrong to throw this cop in jail for beating his ex without actual proof. A teenager's youtube video isn't a courtroom though and shouldn't require the same standards for proof. I'm just saying that it's a lot less unreasonable to accuse this cop of beating his ex than it would be to pick a random person on the street and accuse them of the same. He was clearly wrong about the conviction, there's a pretty good chance he wasn't wrong about the abuse. Maybe that's a good enough standard of evidence to demand from the youtube video of a justifiably pissed off 19 year old? It'd be best if he uploaded a correction, or even a corrected re-upload of his video, but I think it's fair to say that this kid has been screwed over by the legal system enough already. He should probably get a pass for getting the fact about the conviction wrong and not maintaining the highest levels of journalistic integrity in the youtube video documenting the violation of his rights.

wutwutwat 3y ago

I think the point isn’t the ruling but more so it’s the message the cops are sending to everyone else who might do similar things in the future. Imagine the intimidation knowing police officers are battling you in court, you know, those people who work for the same city that the entire courthouse staff does, who they see all the time as part of their jobs, and have long standing mutually “protect our own” relationships with. Cops work in the public. If the cop was charged with beating his wife or even just had the cops called (how would calling the cops on a cop work when they are coworkers?), that would also be public. There’s no invasion of privacy then. If it’s not true, it’s libel not invasion of privacy.

s1artibartfast 3y ago

Yeah, I'm not sure how people would prefer this resolving.