5 ms·

Defamation of a public figure requires knowing that the statement was false, or reckless negligence of the truth. Defamation of a non-public figure requires ne

Defamation of a public figure requires knowing that the statement was false, or reckless negligence of the truth. Defamation of a non-public figure requires negligence of the truth. Assuming the cop can be considered a non-public figure they would need to prove that the statement was made without a lot of consideration for the truth. Given there is nuance here as to the details of the case it is going to be hard to win a defamation case here. A layperson misunderstanding the difference between a court order and a conviction likely isn't enough to justify damages. Smells of using the courts to punish someone by forcing them to lawyer up.

szundi 3y ago
Thanks for this simple and thourogh answer
tyingq 3y ago
> Smells of using the courts to punish someone by forcing them to lawyer up. Though the publicity seems to be making it backfire for the police. I can imagine him getting a pro-bono lawyer based on the publicity. And the details of the protective order leaking out, etc. Streisand effect.
- miguelazo 3y ago
  Yeah, I would imagine ACLU or EFF would pick this up for free.
theossuary 3y ago
This fits an old adage of cops, "You may beat the rap, but you can't beat the ride." This is what that means, it's common for cops to punish people by simply forcing them to pay tens of thousands of dollars in legal fees to beat charges they know won't stick. DAs go along with it because they know cops can destroy their career if they stop providing cases/evidence.
- hollerith 3y ago
  I love how you imply that the only time DAs participate in gratuitous punishment of citizens is when cops threaten their careers.
  - kbenson 3y ago
    I don't think they implied that's the only time a DA would do that, just why they would maybe do it in this situation. Why would a DA want a case that can be beat or dismissed? At best it's more work taking away time for real cases, and it's possibly a defeat if it goes to far, which they definitely don't want. All to punish someone the DA has no reason to care about because it wasn't even anything to do with the DA's authority or the authority of their job? A corrupt DA might knowingly prosecute an innocent person if they think they can make it stick because winning a car is good for thrm, but why would they go out of their way to do something possibly detrimental without reason?
    - swores 3y ago
      Well the reason could be doing the police a favour because you like them just as easily as doing it because they've threatened you. I guess if the DA is worried about the police punishing them by not supplying you good cases, or whatever else, enough to give in to that then it's kind of irrelevant whether they would also want to do the favour anyway for a cop they liked (or just for the principle of supporting your crime-fighting sibling agency) or not. But it's possible that a DA who feels confident that the police wouldn't treat them differently in the future if they said no (or who didn't care about that threat) might still say yes for the different reason of thinking that police always need backing up / that if they disliked this guy enough to fuck with him then it must be because the guy deserves it.
      - kbenson 3y ago
        Yes, but outlining one way in which DA's might feel pressured to do what the police prefer even if it's not strictly supported by the law does not "imply that the only time DAs participate in gratuitous punishment of citizens is when cops threaten their careers". It only implies that's one way or reason why they might do that. That may seem pedantic, but I think it's very important when it comes to having useful and rational discussions. If anyone isn't seeing that, replace "DA" with a minority if your choice and "gratuitous punishment of citizens" with any other negative behavior, like theft or crime, and try to explain what the difference is between the statements. If we can't follow the same rational when assessing behavior of groups we have favorable or unfavorable predisposed opinions towards, then we can't even discuss effectively.
deleted 3y ago
[deleted]

szundi 3y ago

Thanks for this simple and thourogh answer

tyingq 3y ago

> Smells of using the courts to punish someone by forcing them to lawyer up. Though the publicity seems to be making it backfire for the police. I can imagine him getting a pro-bono lawyer based on the publicity. And the details of the protective order leaking out, etc. Streisand effect.

miguelazo 3y ago
Yeah, I would imagine ACLU or EFF would pick this up for free.

theossuary 3y ago

This fits an old adage of cops, "You may beat the rap, but you can't beat the ride." This is what that means, it's common for cops to punish people by simply forcing them to pay tens of thousands of dollars in legal fees to beat charges they know won't stick. DAs go along with it because they know cops can destroy their career if they stop providing cases/evidence.

hollerith 3y ago
I love how you imply that the only time DAs participate in gratuitous punishment of citizens is when cops threaten their careers.
- kbenson 3y ago
  I don't think they implied that's the only time a DA would do that, just why they would maybe do it in this situation. Why would a DA want a case that can be beat or dismissed? At best it's more work taking away time for real cases, and it's possibly a defeat if it goes to far, which they definitely don't want. All to punish someone the DA has no reason to care about because it wasn't even anything to do with the DA's authority or the authority of their job? A corrupt DA might knowingly prosecute an innocent person if they think they can make it stick because winning a car is good for thrm, but why would they go out of their way to do something possibly detrimental without reason?
  - swores 3y ago
    Well the reason could be doing the police a favour because you like them just as easily as doing it because they've threatened you. I guess if the DA is worried about the police punishing them by not supplying you good cases, or whatever else, enough to give in to that then it's kind of irrelevant whether they would also want to do the favour anyway for a cop they liked (or just for the principle of supporting your crime-fighting sibling agency) or not. But it's possible that a DA who feels confident that the police wouldn't treat them differently in the future if they said no (or who didn't care about that threat) might still say yes for the different reason of thinking that police always need backing up / that if they disliked this guy enough to fuck with him then it must be because the guy deserves it.
    - kbenson 3y ago
      Yes, but outlining one way in which DA's might feel pressured to do what the police prefer even if it's not strictly supported by the law does not "imply that the only time DAs participate in gratuitous punishment of citizens is when cops threaten their careers". It only implies that's one way or reason why they might do that. That may seem pedantic, but I think it's very important when it comes to having useful and rational discussions. If anyone isn't seeing that, replace "DA" with a minority if your choice and "gratuitous punishment of citizens" with any other negative behavior, like theft or crime, and try to explain what the difference is between the statements. If we can't follow the same rational when assessing behavior of groups we have favorable or unfavorable predisposed opinions towards, then we can't even discuss effectively.

deleted 3y ago

[deleted]