eye95
Well-known member
Did I miss someone on here accusing you of molesting children?
-
We are now running on a new, and hopefully much-improved, server. In addition we are also on new forum software. Any move entails a lot of technical details and I suspect we will encounter a few issues as the new server goes live. Please be patient with us. It will be worth it! :) Please help by posting all issues here.
-
If you are having trouble seeing the forum then you may need to clear your browser's DNS cache. Click here for instructions on how to do that
-
Please review the Forum Rules frequently as we are constantly trying to improve the forum for our members and visitors.
Libel
- Thread starter kwikrnu
- Start date
Did I miss someone on here accusing you of molesting children?
Beretta92FSLady
Regular Member
So let me get this straight, someone started a rumor about you being a child molester? And someone stated that accusation as fact at a PTA meeting? I thought it was a DV accusation?
I had someone disclose something extremely private about me following an incident I was in. They disclosed it online and it was possible that that specific disclosure could have a negative effect on the investigation process which followed the incident. Personally, I just rolled with the punches, and figured the less time I spent worrying about what someone is posting about me, the more emotional energy and time I would have to actually deal with other aspects of my life.
kwikrnu
Banned
It was a hypothetical involving you, clearly you have difficulty reading and understanding. If someone accused YOU of child molestation and wrote about it on several forums would you forget about it?
Domestic violence is a serious accusation. It is a criminal offense. It is also one for which gun rights are lost. It may as well be a felony as far as gun rights are concerned.
kwikrnu
Banned
The comment was directed to beretta92. It was a hypothetical involving her.
wrightme
Regular Member
That point would have been easy to rectify, without the personal attack.
"For instance, IF someone were to [insert bad thingy that didn't happen] would you be mad?"
If you are presenting a hypothetical statement, it helps to clearly define it as a hypothetical statement WHEN you make it. The way you presented it gives the clear impression that it happened that way to you.
Last edited:
eye95
Well-known member
It was an inapt comparison that carried the clear implication that the event (or at least something very like it) happened to you. As far as I can tell, your "libel" accusation is based on being called a "criminal," which can easily be deemed as merely an opinionated conclusion and not libelous at all. Calling someone a child molester is a very specific charge that carries a very clear meaning and would be libelous--if not factually supportable in the strictest definition of the term.
Bottom line, if someone were called a child molester and was not, that should not be tolerated. Calling someone who has had extensive brushes with the law a "criminal" is merely hyperbolic opinion.
kwikrnu
Banned
It was a conversation between me and beretta92 on this thread. I quoted and replied specifically to her. I addressed her as YOU.
kwikrnu
Banned
Stating someone has been arrested for domestic violence does not carry a clear meaning? I disagree concerning the use of the word criminal.
eye95
Well-known member
Again, I have very clearly and specifically asked you if you have every been arrested for domestic violence. You have also just as clearly chosen not to answer. If you won't answer that simple question, you have no rhetorical leg to stand on.
So, I will ask you again: Have you been arrested for domestic violence?
As I said before, if you refuse to answer, it is reasonable to assume that there is some there there.
palerider116
Regular Member
American Oxford Dictionaries:
criminal |ˈkrimənl|
noun
a person who has committed a crime : these men are dangerous criminals.
adjective
of or relating to a crime : he is charged with conspiracy to commit criminal damage.
• Law of or relating to crime as opposed to civil matters : a criminal court.
• informal (of an action or situation) deplorable and shocking : he may never fulfill his potential, and that would be a criminal waste.
DERIVATIVES
criminality |ˌkriməˈnalitē| noun
criminally adverb
ORIGIN late Middle English (as an adjective): from late Latin criminalis, from Latin crimen, crimin- (see crime ).
Thesaurus
criminal
noun
a convicted criminal lawbreaker, offender, villain, delinquent, felon, convict, malefactor, wrongdoer, culprit, miscreant; thief, burglar, robber, armed robber, gunman, gangster, terrorist; informal crook, con, jailbird, hood, yardbird, perp; Law malfeasant.
adjective
1 criminal conduct unlawful, illegal, illicit, lawless, felonious, delinquent, fraudulent, actionable, culpable; villainous, nefarious, corrupt, wrong, bad, evil, wicked, iniquitous; informal crooked; Law malfeasant. antonym lawful.
2 informal : a criminal waste of taxpayers' money deplorable, shameful, reprehensible, disgraceful, inexcusable, unforgivable, unconscionable, unpardonable, outrageous, monstrous, shocking, scandalous, wicked. antonym commendable.
SOURCE
American Oxford Dictionaries, Version 1.0.2, 2005
criminal |ˈkrimənl|
noun
a person who has committed a crime : these men are dangerous criminals.
adjective
of or relating to a crime : he is charged with conspiracy to commit criminal damage.
• Law of or relating to crime as opposed to civil matters : a criminal court.
• informal (of an action or situation) deplorable and shocking : he may never fulfill his potential, and that would be a criminal waste.
DERIVATIVES
criminality |ˌkriməˈnalitē| noun
criminally adverb
ORIGIN late Middle English (as an adjective): from late Latin criminalis, from Latin crimen, crimin- (see crime ).
Thesaurus
criminal
noun
a convicted criminal lawbreaker, offender, villain, delinquent, felon, convict, malefactor, wrongdoer, culprit, miscreant; thief, burglar, robber, armed robber, gunman, gangster, terrorist; informal crook, con, jailbird, hood, yardbird, perp; Law malfeasant.
adjective
1 criminal conduct unlawful, illegal, illicit, lawless, felonious, delinquent, fraudulent, actionable, culpable; villainous, nefarious, corrupt, wrong, bad, evil, wicked, iniquitous; informal crooked; Law malfeasant. antonym lawful.
2 informal : a criminal waste of taxpayers' money deplorable, shameful, reprehensible, disgraceful, inexcusable, unforgivable, unconscionable, unpardonable, outrageous, monstrous, shocking, scandalous, wicked. antonym commendable.
SOURCE
American Oxford Dictionaries, Version 1.0.2, 2005
PT111
Regular Member
I read nothing in the Brentwood letter that proved Kwik to either be or not be a criminal nor a domestic abuser. It simply said that they didn't know of any either way. I could write a similar letter about almost anyone who posts on this forum.
I know that he says that the charges were dismissed but I haven't seen the answer yet about whether or not he has ever been arrested.
I know that he says that the charges were dismissed but I haven't seen the answer yet about whether or not he has ever been arrested.
kwikrnu
Banned
I have stated several times I have never been arrested for any crime. I have stated several times I have never been charged for any crime. I have never been arrested for anything. I have never been arrested for domestic violence.
kwikrnu
Banned
I have never said any charges have been dismissed. I have never been charged with anything. There has never been anything to dismiss.
No one has posted any proof of an arrest because there was never an arrest. There have never been any charges.
eye95
Well-known member
Your own complaint contends that you were arrested by Ward. You contend (and are almost surely correct) that the arrest was unlawful. Yet, by your own admission, you have been arrested. Care to more carefully craft the above denial?
kwikrnu
Banned
What is your definition of arrest? Ranger ward said i wasn't arrested in the deposition, but agreed I had been detained. He then said I had been arrested because a detention is defined as an arrest. So, it depends upon what your definition of arrest is. If you are talking about being detained for open carrying, then yes, I have been detained/arrested many times. None formally where I was taken to the police station and booked. If we are talking about being arrested for a crime such as an incident of domestic violence then the answer is no i have never been detained/arrested/charged for any domestic violence offense.
eye95
Well-known member
It is not MY definition that matters. YOU in YOUR complaint said that your were arrested.
Furthermore, I found the following quote from YOU: "A detention is technically an arrest."
So, by both your definition and your complaint, you have been arrested.
The point is that this is a message board. If you cannot have complete agreement between what you post on a message board and what you file in a complaint, how can you hold other posters to technical standards in the words they use?
So, care to more carefully craft your denial?
Furthermore, I found the following quote from YOU: "A detention is technically an arrest."
So, by both your definition and your complaint, you have been arrested.
The point is that this is a message board. If you cannot have complete agreement between what you post on a message board and what you file in a complaint, how can you hold other posters to technical standards in the words they use?
So, care to more carefully craft your denial?
Last edited:
Beretta92FSLady
Regular Member
DV is a serious crime.
I did not know that you were accused of DV until you had written it online. In all of the posts that I have read(e), some of which are posts you say are accusational, it appears the person used a general accusation of you being a "criminal." I would say, generally, you appear to be high-strung about non-issues. I have read(e) through a number of pages that I thought might reference you, specifically by name...it appears that your name is not specifically stated online, at least your full name, or even your first name, from what I can find.
I seriously can't believe you spend this much time in your day worrying about someone calling you a criminal. It seems to me that the only response the accuser should initiate from you is you privately talking to the accuser first, try to hash it out, then if that doesn't work, the board administrators. Definitely not drawing light to something that is purportedly a false accusation.
mohawk001
Regular Member
I would make it easy if I was the judge in a libel case over being called a criminal. I would ask something along the line of if you've ever sped at all. If so, which I'm willing to bet 99.999999999999% of the people have, then yes you are a criminal like it or not.
sudden valley gunner
Regular Member
In my state and I think most states went this way, speeding is not a criminal infraction but a civil one. It gives the state much more lattitude and leeway in "prosecuting" you.
amlevin
Regular Member
But haven't you, by your actions become a "Public Figure"? Either by by desire or coincidently, you do appear to have some celebrity. By my understanding of the Law, that brings forth an additional burden of proof to show libel.
"Public Figures
Under the First Amendment of the United States Constitution, as set forth by the U.S. Supreme Court in the 1964 Case, New York Times v Sullivan, where a public figure attempts to bring an action for defamation, the public figure must prove an additional element: That the statement was made with "actual malice". In translation, that means that the person making the statement knew the statement to be false, or issued the statement with reckless disregard as to its truth. For example, Ariel Sharon sued Time Magazine over allegations of his conduct relating to the massacres at the Sabra and Shatila refugee camps. Although the jury concluded that the Time story included false allegations, they found that Time had not acted with "actual malice" and did not award any damages.
The concept of the "public figure" is broader than celebrities and politicians. A person can become an "involuntary public figure" as the result of publicity, even though that person did not want or invite the public attention. For example, people accused of high profile crimes may be unable to pursue actions for defamation even after their innocence is established, on the basis that the notoriety associated with the case and the accusations against them turned them into involuntary public figures.
A person can also become a "limited public figure" by engaging in actions which generate publicity within a narrow area of interest. For example, a woman named Terry Rakolta was offended by the Fox Television show, Married With Children, and wrote letters to the show's advertisers to try to get them to stop their support for the show. As a result of her actions, Ms. Rakolta became the target of jokes in a wide variety of settings. As these jokes remained within the confines of her public conduct, typically making fun of her as being prudish or censorious, they were protected by Ms. Rakolta's status as a "limited public figure".
http://www.expertlaw.com/library/personal_injury/defamation.html
"That the statement was made with "actual malice"." is a pretty high hurdle to prove libel on a public forum.
But then again, aren't you an Attorney and know this already?