Posted on 07/30/2010 8:47:32 AM PDT by freedomwarrior998
Hopefully, the scummy race-baiter activist will appeal and win.
Since he elected to not give a defense, he has no grounds for appeal.
The only thing he could challenge is the application of the rules of civil procedure.
Free speech was never presented as a defense, so it could not be used in the verdict.
Yes you can sue a cop, civil rights violations are filed all the time against officers. You can sue a department too, it happens all the time for the smallest of infractions.
Hopefully the race-baiter scumbag community organizer will be mugged and there won’t be a police officer in hearing distance.
Where did you come up with that tid bit?
Thank you!
How America deals with its weakest, or its unpopular, is important.
Note that Muslims are antithetical to, and irreconcilable with, America. Which raises the question of how can America deal with Islam. My humble suggestion is “Islam Delenda Est” - because they forced us.
It’s the reason my son’s department carries $1 mil. liability ins on each cop. I believe he carries an extra mil on his own - it’s not expensive.
Some just have a compulsion to bash cops. Could be that they have found themselves on the wrong side of the law at some point in their lives.
I was wondering what it is that you don’t understand about the statement in the article about the guy who was shot by police running from police and then opening fire on them before he was shot.
If a perp shoots at police officers, I have no problem with police officers defending themselves. I do have a problem with mindless race baiting and hustling character assination from “community activists.”
“qualified immunity”
Bivens v Six Unknown Named Agents(1971)
Many states have adopted these as well.
You can sure the department, city or the state, but the officers themselves remain shielded.
It bothers me that our congressmen can say that in session and are immune from prosecution, but a citizen speaking at a meeting isn’t protected.
But he did make the mistake of not saying “in my opinion”, thus instead making a claim of fact.
However, they should have hired a speech expert, or gotten some other testimony comparing this rhetoric to other rhetoric in speeches, which would show that the phrases were not MEANT to be taken literally, but were simply rhetorical flourishes that convey meaning without literal truth.
The thing I think he said that was most likely to get him convicted was the statement “He’S been wanting to shoot someone for a long time”. That is clearly a statement of truth, and if either knowably false, or if given with no evidence (since this is not a public figure), would be libelous.
I don’t imagine that the Klan comparison would be libelous, although he’d been better to say “acting like members”, rather than “acting no different than”, as the first is clearly NOT saying he is a Klansman, while the 2nd could mean he’s a Klansman in spirit.
A person can take the same actions as other people without the same motivation. Technically, if the defendant could show that a Klan member had shot a person, they could argue that “acting like a Klan member” was literally true since they both were white people who shot a black person.
"Slander is in the eye of the beholder."
Wrong. Slander is not an opinion.
[Function: noun] 1 : the utterance of false charges or misrepresentations which defame and damage another's reputation 2 : a false and defamatory oral statement about a person
You are entitled to your own opinion, but you are not entitled to your own false facts.
Your example: "...I believe that Pres. Jughead is a Marxist, elitist, racist who wants to destroy America." is not slander because you stated it as your belief (opinion).
If you do not include the disclaimer that it is your belief or opinion, then it may or may not be slander, depending upon whether or not you can provide factual proof sufficient to convince a judge and/or jury that each and every charge made is factually true.
To further illustrate the need for civil laws protecting against slander, suppose that someone in a public meeting states that you are a gay, pervert, pedophile who should never be allowed within 1000 yards of any child. Further suppose that Child Protective Services immediately takes possession of your children and that the police may arrest you.
After a lengthy amount of time and money proving your innocence and regaining custody of your children, you discover that you've been fired from your job and unable to get another one, and that friends and neighbors now avoid you.
Would you not want to sue the person that slandered you and recover some compensation for the emotional and financial pain caused to you?
(Oh, wait - you believe that people are entitled to say whatever they want under the 'freedom of speech' clause of the first ammendment. After all, they are entitled to their opinion. Nevermind.) /s
As for your assertion that "...we imprison someone for saying something we don’t want to hear...", that is false. I am not aware of any law in any jurisdiction which provides such criminal penalties for that civil tort alone. (Such statements might, however, be used to prove intent for charges of criminal action or behaviour.)
From the article
"Mr. Omar has the right to comment -- and criticize the police department of his community," Strelka said. Strelka and Omar said after the hearing that an appeal depends whether Omar can raise $5,000 needed as a bond before filing.
And why does he need to post bond? Could it be because he is presently incarcerated? And again from the article, it appears he is incarcerated because of what he said in a town meeting.
Do I agree with this activist? Nope, I think he's scum. But when a person is incarcerated for stating his opinion, then I have an issue. IMHO, Freedom of Speech is not based upon what I want to hear, but should be based upon what I don't want to hear. That said, there are limits as you so eloquently pointed out. But, in you example, I can cite harm created by the slander (loss of job, children, reputation, ect). Other than a bruised ego, what damages were done to the policeman?
Now, I wasn't there; and it could be that this person was warned that he was committing slander - to me this is a very slippery slope.
Someone needs to put up a billboard reminding Grand Wizerd John Quigley that political speech is protected.
Defamation isn’t political speech.
It's an appeal bond. This is not a criminal case. Omar is not incarcerated. He was sued in Civil Court. He lost. If he wants to appeal, he has to post an appeal bond.
Do I agree with this activist? Nope, I think he's scum. But when a person is incarcerated for stating his opinion, then I have an issue.
1. He is not incarcerated.
2. He committed slander, he didn't state an opinion.
IMHO, Freedom of Speech is not based upon what I want to hear, but should be based upon what I don't want to hear. That said, there are limits as you so eloquently pointed out. But, in you example, I can cite harm created by the slander (loss of job, children, reputation, ect). Other than a bruised ego, what damages were done to the policeman?
What about the damage to his reputation in the community?
Now, I wasn't there; and it could be that this person was warned that he was committing slander - to me this is a very slippery slope.
He doesn't have to be warned. He just needs to not commit slander.
Epic historical knowledge of politics fail.
I don't believe the 'bond' of $5,000 is for bail. If you have ever been any part of a lawsuit and on the losing end and wish to appeal the decision, you must first pay for such an appeal. And yes, they are costly.
"And why does he need to post bond? Could it be because he is presently incarcerated?"
No, the bond is to guarantee payment of the damages awarded to the officer if Omar loses his appeal. This is standard procedure when appealing a judgement from a civil trial. The appeal is not considered 'perfected' (a legal requirement) if a bond in the amount of the judgement is not posted. Thus, the appeal is not heard in that event.
You may have been further misled into believing that Omar was incarcerated because of the following statement in the article:
"Lumsden called Omar to the witness stand, but Omar cited the Fifth Amendment protection against self-incrimination and did not testify."IMO, either his lawyer was incompetent or wanted to gain public sympathy by inferring that the case was criminal instead of civil. (Since many witnesses from the public meeting could be called to testify that Omar said what the plaintiff alleged, there was no hope of denying that he said it.)
There is no 5th amendment protection in a civil trial (except for testimony which may be used to incriminate oneself of an actual crime in a separate criminal trial). In a civil trial, a refusal to testify is regarded the same as admitting the truth of opposition testimony. (ie., Omar effectively admitted he said everything the plaintiff alleged.)
Or, perhaps you were misled by these statements:
"Omar, 60, is an outspoken foe of many police and prison practices. He bombards state officials with letters about the treatment of prisoners and frequently speaks to the city council about conditions in the Roanoke jail or the actions of police officers.
Omar's defense was coordinated by the Rutherford Institute, a Charlottesville legal organization that works on civil liberties cases.
The emphasis in the above quote is mine and may be the phrase which suggested to you that Omar was himself incarcerated.
Obviously, Omar's lawyer was ascerting a 'freedom of speech' defense, but he failed to present any evidence or testimony that Omar was stating an opinion, or editorializing in a public forum.
Omar made the following statement as a statement of fact:
"He's been wanting to shoot someone for a long time."
If Omar's lawyer could have proved that Omar said: I THINK he's been wanting to shoot someone for a long time." or IN MY OPINION, he's been wanting to shoot someone for a long time." then Omar would have won his case.
The statement as it was actually made defamed the officer and if left unchallenged would have been grounds for having the officer fired and become ineligible for hiring by any other law enforcement agency. The threat to his continued employment and future employability was real, substantial, and impugned his reputation, making his job much more difficult and dangerous.
You are wrong. Period. End of story. The First Amendment was never intended to protect defamation. What you are calling “political speech” isn’t. It’s that simple.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.