5 ms·

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 whe

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.
    - criddell 3y ago
      > shouldn’t require the same standards for proof It doesn’t. One is criminal, the other civil. Totally different standards.
  - ofslidingfeet 3y ago
    No, generally what entitles you to smear people with generic insults without facts is the principle of free speech.
    - bequanna 3y ago
      Try yelling “fire” in a crowded theatre and telling the cops they can’t arrest you because free speech. That isn’t how free speech works. Also, they weren’t generic insults. They were specific. How about if publicly I claim: “ofslidingfeet was fired for embezzling money”? Is that covered under free speech?
      - ofslidingfeet 3y ago
        If you yell fire in a crowded theater, nothing will happen.

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.
  - criddell 3y ago
    > shouldn’t require the same standards for proof It doesn’t. One is criminal, the other civil. Totally different standards.
- ofslidingfeet 3y ago
  No, generally what entitles you to smear people with generic insults without facts is the principle of free speech.
  - bequanna 3y ago
    Try yelling “fire” in a crowded theatre and telling the cops they can’t arrest you because free speech. That isn’t how free speech works. Also, they weren’t generic insults. They were specific. How about if publicly I claim: “ofslidingfeet was fired for embezzling money”? Is that covered under free speech?
    - ofslidingfeet 3y ago
      If you yell fire in a crowded theater, nothing will happen.