[37-99]

To the Jack Ass for SE Mass whose interest include "catching scumbags",

The 1st Amendment does not give you the right to slander individuals. But being a graduate from a police academy you already knew that. Or are you?You sit there on your high horse and preach about ethics and morals yet you hide behind this message board. If you have such a problem with this person why don't you strap on a pair and go say what you have say to his face? You wouldn't dare. You don't even have the nerve to list the department/city you work for? You don't have the nerve to say something for yourself. You say things like "according to numerous people" and "according to numerous officers." Well what is accoriding to you? Do you want to know the difference between these shtittalkers and you? They weren't stupid enough to actually post rumor and innuedo on the internet. They fed you their opinion and let you run to your keyboard fingers a blazin. And sadly yes, it is the opinion of others not even your own that has led to you to the awkward of position of being in a possible libel suit.

 

[j809]

The 1st Amendment does not give you the right to slander individuals.

Nobody is slandering anyone. These are just facts that were brought up in a Brockton Enterprise article. Yes 1st Ammendment.

If you have such a problem with this person why don't you strap on a pair and go say what you have say to his face? You wouldn't dare.

Please, I know this person better than you want to know. He told me this job was his that it was taken care off in 1998. Yes it was in the bag that long and it was no secret that he would be getting it eventually.

You say things like "according to numerous people" and "according to numerous officers."

It's no secret BOZO, they're all pissed at this crap that was pulled. But you wouldn't know cause you are so far up J's ASS.

They weren't stupid enough to actually post rumor and innuedo on the internet. They fed you their opinion and let you run to your keyboard fingers a blazin.

It's no rumor pal, it's a fact and it was in the paper.

And sadly yes, it is the opinion of others not even your own that has led to you to the awkward of position of being in a possible libel suit.

Actually in order to have a libel suit the accusations have to be false and damaging. They are all true and not according to other people but according to facts.

P.S. Who are we talking about anyway?

 

[Burner1]

Not to add insult to injury, but...to sue under slander and libel "tort" law is very difficult. . In this instance, if there was a publication in the press, forget it. The press has all kinds of added constitutional protections, not to exclude additional elements to be proved in order to be successful in a libel/slander case. Case and point, the burden will be on the plaintiff to prove common law elements and constitutional elements. As well as, actual, not presumed, damages...good luck.

 

[Officer Dunngeon]

Why can't the topic of this person just be LET GO???

No, libel of a particular person is not tolerated here, but NEITHER IS BEATING A DEAD HORSE.

Please drop it before this turns into another piss match.

 

[j809]

I hear Ya Dungie, close the topic and let's move on with our lives. I'll post the new followup article from the Enterprise when it's going to eb published.

 

[mpd61]

Hey 37-99!

If you're interested and qualified there an MSP professional development course coming up in Civil Law

It might be of help in preventing you from putting your foot in your mouth, besides it probably doesn't taste good being in your ass first.