Does Officer Wilson Have a Civil Case Against News Media

[jc456]

But your opinion is based strictly on emotion and in no way is it supported by the forensic evidence. Do you not see how that is a very dangerous approach?

Sure, there are many times where we want to believe something...but in many cases, no matter how much we want to believe it, the physical evidence proves our wishes to be wrong.

In this case, you are convinced the officer was in the wrong strictly because you want him to be...not because the evidence proves him to be wrong.

And when the evidence proved him to actually be justified, you decide to claim the evidence has been either tampered with, or compromised to a point where it is not reliable.

Do you not see how you are letting your desire for something to be get in the way of your ability to discern fact from fiction?

My opinion is NOT based on emotions, not in the least. Once again, the forensic evidence tells very little of what actually happened. Can the forensic evidence show the words spoken between Mr. Brown and Mr. Wilson? Can the forensic evidence determine whether or not Mr. Brown was trying to take Mr. Wilson's weapon? There were no witnesses to what was said or done inside the patrol car. Forensic evidence can only tell so much, and since there isn't anyone alive to dispute claims made by Mr. Wilson, of course the evidence can be read as supporting the non-contested claims of Mr. Wilson. The evidence wasn't challenged in court by a defense attorney, nor were witnesses crossed examined in a courtroom. The whole case was based on favorable witnesses and the word of Mr. Wilson.

No, I do NOT see a dangerous approach to anything. FYI - It is NOT wishful thinking on my part. I do NOT wish for anything in this matter. FYI - I am NOT convinced the officer was wrong, and I have never said that the officer was wrong in anything except he could have used better judgment instead of killing an unarmed teen. The evidence did NOT prove that the officer was right, the evidence proved that there was nothing to counter the evidence with. There was never an opposing side to weigh against what was given. You can't prove anything when only one side is presented. If I do something wrong, and there are no witnesses and no opposing argument, then, yes, I'm found to be innocent.

I have NEVER ever said any evidence was tampered with, NEVER. I have NEVER ever said that any evidence was compromised, NEVER. Please show me where I have ever said those things, please. Please show me where I have said all of the things that you are claiming that I have said. Can you show me? Will you show me? Or, are you just going to accuse me of something without backing it up?

FYI - What desire do you believe that I have? Please explain exactly what desire you believe that I have. I have NO desire concerning this matter. I have merely expressed my opinion on the matter, and have never had any desires associated with the matter. You sure assume an awful lot. Also, you repeatedly accuse me of saying things that I have never said nor implied. Why? Why do you do it? What exactly do you hope to accomplish by accusing me of things that I have never said nor implied? And, why do you say such silly things as "my desire"? I don't desire for anything concerning Mr. Wilson, nor Mr. Brown.

and a duck is a fish.

Very funny, also very silly. I'm not impressed at all.

it was spot on!

I'm sure, especially to you.

it's all it could be. You obviously have no idea what it is you are talking about. Answer Jarhead's post.

 

[Roadrunner]

Does officer Wilson of Ferguson, Missouri have grounds for a civil case against the U.S. news media , in particularly extreme leftist networks like MSNBC or publications like the NY Times and Washington Post for libel and slander? The whole rush to judgement with "Hand's Up Don't Shoot" mantra that turned out to be a lie has totally destroyed officer Wilson's career.

He'd be wise to keep his mouth shut and leave well enough alone. He got off easy, and should be thankful that an independent outside agency didn't conduct the investigation.

The Justice Department isn't an independent outside agency?

Who would you have suggested investigate, the New Black Panther Party?

Exactly my point. No, the Department of Justice is NOT an outside agency, not by a long shot. I would suggest that an independent agency or company, that has no ties or connection to any law enforcement agency, do the investigation. Law enforcement agencies investigating law enforcement agencies hints at possible bias and favorable results. And, your comment about the Black Panthers is pathetic and silly.

So, who would you suggest to ensure Wilson was railroaded against all evidence?

 

[Jarhead]

My opinion is NOT based on emotions, not in the least. Once again, the forensic evidence tells very little of what actually happened. Can the forensic evidence show the words spoken between Mr. Brown and Mr. Wilson? Can the forensic evidence determine whether or not Mr. Brown was trying to take Mr. Wilson's weapon? There were no witnesses to what was said or done inside the patrol car. Forensic evidence can only tell so much, and since there isn't anyone alive to dispute claims made by Mr. Wilson, of course the evidence can be read as supporting the non-contested claims of Mr. Wilson. The evidence wasn't challenged in court by a defense attorney, nor were witnesses crossed examined in a courtroom. The whole case was based on favorable witnesses and the word of Mr. Wilson.

No, I do NOT see a dangerous approach to anything. FYI - It is NOT wishful thinking on my part. I do NOT wish for anything in this matter. FYI - I am NOT convinced the officer was wrong, and I have never said that the officer was wrong in anything except he could have used better judgment instead of killing an unarmed teen. The evidence did NOT prove that the officer was right, the evidence proved that there was nothing to counter the evidence with. There was never an opposing side to weigh against what was given. You can't prove anything when only one side is presented. If I do something wrong, and there are no witnesses and no opposing argument, then, yes, I'm found to be innocent.

I have NEVER ever said any evidence was tampered with, NEVER. I have NEVER ever said that any evidence was compromised, NEVER. Please show me where I have ever said those things, please. Please show me where I have said all of the things that you are claiming that I have said. Can you show me? Will you show me? Or, are you just going to accuse me of something without backing it up?

FYI - What desire do you believe that I have? Please explain exactly what desire you believe that I have. I have NO desire concerning this matter. I have merely expressed my opinion on the matter, and have never had any desires associated with the matter. You sure assume an awful lot. Also, you repeatedly accuse me of saying things that I have never said nor implied. Why? Why do you do it? What exactly do you hope to accomplish by accusing me of things that I have never said nor implied? And, why do you say such silly things as "my desire"? I don't desire for anything concerning Mr. Wilson, nor Mr. Brown.

and a duck is a fish.

Very funny, also very silly. I'm not impressed at all.

it was spot on!

I'm sure, especially to you.

it's all it could be. You obviously have no idea what it is you are talking about. Answer Jarhead's post.

he continues to answer with theory...claiming it to not be theory..
There is no logic to his thinking. He is stuck on Wilson being wrong...despite his claims of otherwise.

I assume he believes there is better evidence that can be used....but in a country where Americans are racist by nature, even one who advocates for civil rights (Holder) tends to ignore evidence when it implicates a black man.

Read some of his posts in other threads. He sees America as a racist nation.....there is no debating with an individual like that.

 

[nodoginnafight]

I think that is the only thing this going to get these lying, misleading LAMEstream media under control

PEOPLE need to start suing them out of business preferable. I was never big on suing but for them. I SAY go for it

OK, so can you please show me the media's remarks that constitute libel or slander?

Actually, there were many news programs that brought on opinionists that offered their opinion and that, of course, is not illegal prior to the facts being determined. However, if any of those news programs that allowed that opinion to be offered did NOT report on the fact that the findings were otherwise, they could be held liable for slander for they allowed an opinion to be expressed to their audience and did not show factual proof that the opinion was wrong. And, if in fact, such is the case, then the news program could be found liable for affecting the reputation of the subject.

If that is the basis for his lawsuit, he will lose. But you still haven't provided any quotes to support even that lawsuit.
If you want to argue he has a case, you are going to have to produce some damaging quotes.

 

[Sonny Clark]

Yes, I did say that, and I stand by it. Why?

well there is your proof.

Proof of what exactly? What does it prove? It proves that I stand by my opinion as what happened and what didn't happen. That's all that means or proves. What does it prove to you?

But your opinion is based strictly on emotion and in no way is it supported by the forensic evidence. Do you not see how that is a very dangerous approach?

Sure, there are many times where we want to believe something...but in many cases, no matter how much we want to believe it, the physical evidence proves our wishes to be wrong.

In this case, you are convinced the officer was in the wrong strictly because you want him to be...not because the evidence proves him to be wrong.

And when the evidence proved him to actually be justified, you decide to claim the evidence has been either tampered with, or compromised to a point where it is not reliable.

Do you not see how you are letting your desire for something to be get in the way of your ability to discern fact from fiction?

My opinion is NOT based on emotions, not in the least. Once again, the forensic evidence tells very little of what actually happened. Can the forensic evidence show the words spoken between Mr. Brown and Mr. Wilson? Can the forensic evidence determine whether or not Mr. Brown was trying to take Mr. Wilson's weapon? There were no witnesses to what was said or done inside the patrol car. Forensic evidence can only tell so much, and since there isn't anyone alive to dispute claims made by Mr. Wilson, of course the evidence can be read as supporting the non-contested claims of Mr. Wilson. The evidence wasn't challenged in court by a defense attorney, nor were witnesses crossed examined in a courtroom. The whole case was based on favorable witnesses and the word of Mr. Wilson.

No, I do NOT see a dangerous approach to anything. FYI - It is NOT wishful thinking on my part. I do NOT wish for anything in this matter. FYI - I am NOT convinced the officer was wrong, and I have never said that the officer was wrong in anything except he could have used better judgment instead of killing an unarmed teen. The evidence did NOT prove that the officer was right, the evidence proved that there was nothing to counter the evidence with. There was never an opposing side to weigh against what was given. You can't prove anything when only one side is presented. If I do something wrong, and there are no witnesses and no opposing argument, then, yes, I'm found to be innocent.

I have NEVER ever said any evidence was tampered with, NEVER. I have NEVER ever said that any evidence was compromised, NEVER. Please show me where I have ever said those things, please. Please show me where I have said all of the things that you are claiming that I have said. Can you show me? Will you show me? Or, are you just going to accuse me of something without backing it up?

FYI - What desire do you believe that I have? Please explain exactly what desire you believe that I have. I have NO desire concerning this matter. I have merely expressed my opinion on the matter, and have never had any desires associated with the matter. You sure assume an awful lot. Also, you repeatedly accuse me of saying things that I have never said nor implied. Why? Why do you do it? What exactly do you hope to accomplish by accusing me of things that I have never said nor implied? And, why do you say such silly things as "my desire"? I don't desire for anything concerning Mr. Wilson, nor Mr. Brown.

So I am curious...

What is your solution? If you believe forensic evidence does not prove anything; If you believe eyewitness accounts that support the forensic evidence doesn't prove anything; if you believe that forensic evidence that contradicts other eyewitness accounts doesn't prove anything...

What would a 3rd party independent investigative team work with?

I don't know if you see where you are going with this.....but you are making it clear that you would not be satisfied until evidence proves your theory to be correct.

And the ironic thing is.......yours is a theory that has been proven to be incorrect....but what proved that, in your eyes, does not count.

And by the way...a lot of what you said in the lengthy post of your is factually incorrect.

Forensic evidence is used to match up with eyewitness accounts. The forensic evidence, contrary to your claim, told a lot of what happened...and it directly backed up the claims of several eye witnesses as well as the officer himself. It contradicted the eyewitness accounts that claimed he had his hands up and begging for his life...making those witnesses less credible.

It is how it works.

How would you handle it?

Oh, and by the way. You can not fool an intelligent human being. You DO what the officer to be guilty. You DO want Michael Brown to have been a victim and you DO want the parents of Michael Brown to have had their son shot down in cold blood for no apparent reason.

One who ignores the obvious to support a theory is one who wants to be right.

I offer no solution, and haven't been looking for one. My point has never been about a solution. My point has always been that the system didn't handle the case right, and that there could've been a much better job done. It could've easily been handled to where there were almost no doubts in anyone's mind. Also, my point is that this case is representative of our injustices in the judicial system. I believe that our judicial system is anything but a system of justice. I wasn't there, I didn't interview witnesses, and I didn't examine the so-called evidence. Besides, the evidence consisted of blood and gun shot wounds. There are other possibilities to explain the blood and gun shot wounds other than what was given. Also, cherry-picking witnesses would have never happened in a court with a judge and jury. Also, there was no cross examination of the witnesses done by an opposing side. The reason was, a dead man can't talk. There was no opposing side. No one could argue against the officer because his story was the only story that actually knew what was said and what order what happened. It was totally a one-sided affair, where the so called evidence was weighed against the officers story of events, with no opposing argument presented.

An independent investigator(s) could have weighed everything and ruled on the collective eye witnesses and compared the testimony to any known facts. As it happened, and was reported, unfavorable witnesses were determined to be liars, and witnesses favorable to Mr. Wilson was taken as gospel. Also, the two construction workers that were recorded at the scene that actually witnessed the shooting, and voiced their amazement the second the shots were fired, were never heard from again. Also, no one mentioned anything about the possibilities that could explain Mr. Wilson's blood that was found on Mr. Brown. Mr. Wilson claimed the blood was from a struggle over the officer's gun. But, no one witnessed what took place inside the patrol car, and there are no videos to prove one way or the other. So, the blood could've been the results of Mr. Wilson attacking Mr. Brown. A defense attorney would have questioned all possibilities in a court of law before a judge and jury.

I am NOT, and have NOT, taken sides. I do NOT know either Mr. Wilson, nor Mr. Brown. I have no dog in the fight. I have no desire to find the case favorable to either side. My whole point has been all along that the case was mishandled, justice wasn't served, and bias played a huge roll in the outcome. The results wouldn't have mattered to me either way, as long as it was handled properly and the investigation didn't reek of bias. I have no desire to see either party to be found innocent or guilty, none. My point has never been about which side was right or which side was wrong. Mr. Brown's parents have not crossed my mind. Why say that?

 

[Jarhead]

I think that is the only thing this going to get these lying, misleading LAMEstream media under control

PEOPLE need to start suing them out of business preferable. I was never big on suing but for them. I SAY go for it

OK, so can you please show me the media's remarks that constitute libel or slander?

Actually, there were many news programs that brought on opinionists that offered their opinion and that, of course, is not illegal prior to the facts being determined. However, if any of those news programs that allowed that opinion to be offered did NOT report on the fact that the findings were otherwise, they could be held liable for slander for they allowed an opinion to be expressed to their audience and did not show factual proof that the opinion was wrong. And, if in fact, such is the case, then the news program could be found liable for affecting the reputation of the subject.

If that is the basis for his lawsuit, he will lose. But you still haven't provided any quotes to support even that lawsuit.
If you want to argue he has a case, you are going to have to produce some damaging quotes.

Me? I am not one saying he has a lawsuit. I doubt he does.

There is only one way he may have a lawsuit...

If any form of NEWS media out there...be it a network, a local affiliate, or a newspaper.....had an opinionist offer their opinion PRIOR to the final findings (nothing wrong with that)...and that opinion claimed that Officer Wilson shot Michael Brown in cold blood (again, nothing wrong with offering an opinion).....but that same newspaper or news program did NOT subsequently report on the findings when the findings were released....then he may have a case that that newspaper of news program did not allow the opinion to be refuted by facts to their audience.....allowing their audience to make an inaccurate judgment call on Officer Wilson.

Bear in mind...in a case such as this, it is assumed that there is at least one individual who gets ALL of their news from only one source....so saying "they could have heard the truth elsewhere" is not a defense.

Otherwise, I do not see how he would have a case.

 

[Jarhead]

well there is your proof.

Proof of what exactly? What does it prove? It proves that I stand by my opinion as what happened and what didn't happen. That's all that means or proves. What does it prove to you?

But your opinion is based strictly on emotion and in no way is it supported by the forensic evidence. Do you not see how that is a very dangerous approach?

Sure, there are many times where we want to believe something...but in many cases, no matter how much we want to believe it, the physical evidence proves our wishes to be wrong.

In this case, you are convinced the officer was in the wrong strictly because you want him to be...not because the evidence proves him to be wrong.

And when the evidence proved him to actually be justified, you decide to claim the evidence has been either tampered with, or compromised to a point where it is not reliable.

Do you not see how you are letting your desire for something to be get in the way of your ability to discern fact from fiction?

My opinion is NOT based on emotions, not in the least. Once again, the forensic evidence tells very little of what actually happened. Can the forensic evidence show the words spoken between Mr. Brown and Mr. Wilson? Can the forensic evidence determine whether or not Mr. Brown was trying to take Mr. Wilson's weapon? There were no witnesses to what was said or done inside the patrol car. Forensic evidence can only tell so much, and since there isn't anyone alive to dispute claims made by Mr. Wilson, of course the evidence can be read as supporting the non-contested claims of Mr. Wilson. The evidence wasn't challenged in court by a defense attorney, nor were witnesses crossed examined in a courtroom. The whole case was based on favorable witnesses and the word of Mr. Wilson.

No, I do NOT see a dangerous approach to anything. FYI - It is NOT wishful thinking on my part. I do NOT wish for anything in this matter. FYI - I am NOT convinced the officer was wrong, and I have never said that the officer was wrong in anything except he could have used better judgment instead of killing an unarmed teen. The evidence did NOT prove that the officer was right, the evidence proved that there was nothing to counter the evidence with. There was never an opposing side to weigh against what was given. You can't prove anything when only one side is presented. If I do something wrong, and there are no witnesses and no opposing argument, then, yes, I'm found to be innocent.

I have NEVER ever said any evidence was tampered with, NEVER. I have NEVER ever said that any evidence was compromised, NEVER. Please show me where I have ever said those things, please. Please show me where I have said all of the things that you are claiming that I have said. Can you show me? Will you show me? Or, are you just going to accuse me of something without backing it up?

FYI - What desire do you believe that I have? Please explain exactly what desire you believe that I have. I have NO desire concerning this matter. I have merely expressed my opinion on the matter, and have never had any desires associated with the matter. You sure assume an awful lot. Also, you repeatedly accuse me of saying things that I have never said nor implied. Why? Why do you do it? What exactly do you hope to accomplish by accusing me of things that I have never said nor implied? And, why do you say such silly things as "my desire"? I don't desire for anything concerning Mr. Wilson, nor Mr. Brown.

So I am curious...

What is your solution? If you believe forensic evidence does not prove anything; If you believe eyewitness accounts that support the forensic evidence doesn't prove anything; if you believe that forensic evidence that contradicts other eyewitness accounts doesn't prove anything...

What would a 3rd party independent investigative team work with?

I don't know if you see where you are going with this.....but you are making it clear that you would not be satisfied until evidence proves your theory to be correct.

And the ironic thing is.......yours is a theory that has been proven to be incorrect....but what proved that, in your eyes, does not count.

And by the way...a lot of what you said in the lengthy post of your is factually incorrect.

Forensic evidence is used to match up with eyewitness accounts. The forensic evidence, contrary to your claim, told a lot of what happened...and it directly backed up the claims of several eye witnesses as well as the officer himself. It contradicted the eyewitness accounts that claimed he had his hands up and begging for his life...making those witnesses less credible.

It is how it works.

How would you handle it?

Oh, and by the way. You can not fool an intelligent human being. You DO what the officer to be guilty. You DO want Michael Brown to have been a victim and you DO want the parents of Michael Brown to have had their son shot down in cold blood for no apparent reason.

One who ignores the obvious to support a theory is one who wants to be right.

I offer no solution, and haven't been looking for one. My point has never been about a solution. My point has always been that the system didn't handle the case right, and that there could've been a much better job done. It could've easily been handled to where there were almost no doubts in anyone's mind. Also, my point is that this case is representative of our injustices in the judicial system. I believe that our judicial system is anything but a system of justice. I wasn't there, I didn't interview witnesses, and I didn't examine the so-called evidence. Besides, the evidence consisted of blood and gun shot wounds. There are other possibilities to explain the blood and gun shot wounds other than what was given. Also, cherry-picking witnesses would have never happened in a court with a judge and jury. Also, there was no cross examination of the witnesses done by an opposing side. The reason was, a dead man can't talk. There was no opposing side. No one could argue against the officer because his story was the only story that actually knew what was said and what order what happened. It was totally a one-sided affair, where the so called evidence was weighed against the officers story of events, with no opposing argument presented.

An independent investigator(s) could have weighed everything and ruled on the collective eye witnesses and compared the testimony to any known facts. As it happened, and was reported, unfavorable witnesses were determined to be liars, and witnesses favorable to Mr. Wilson was taken as gospel. Also, the two construction workers that were recorded at the scene that actually witnessed the shooting, and voiced their amazement the second the shots were fired, were never heard from again. Also, no one mentioned anything about the possibilities that could explain Mr. Wilson's blood that was found on Mr. Brown. Mr. Wilson claimed the blood was from a struggle over the officer's gun. But, no one witnessed what took place inside the patrol car, and there are no videos to prove one way or the other. So, the blood could've been the results of Mr. Wilson attacking Mr. Brown. A defense attorney would have questioned all possibilities in a court of law before a judge and jury.

I am NOT, and have NOT, taken sides. I do NOT know either Mr. Wilson, nor Mr. Brown. I have no dog in the fight. I have no desire to find the case favorable to either side. My whole point has been all along that the case was mishandled, justice wasn't served, and bias played a huge roll in the outcome. The results wouldn't have mattered to me either way, as long as it was handled properly and the investigation didn't reek of bias. I have no desire to see either party to be found innocent or guilty, none. My point has never been about which side was right or which side was wrong. Mr. Brown's parents have not crossed my mind. Why say that?

If there are still doubts in anyone's mind...it is because those people do not want the decision to be as it was......like you.

The rest of what you wrote is not worthy of my time. Sorry.

 

[Jarhead]

I think that is the only thing this going to get these lying, misleading LAMEstream media under control

PEOPLE need to start suing them out of business preferable. I was never big on suing but for them. I SAY go for it

OK, so can you please show me the media's remarks that constitute libel or slander?

Actually, there were many news programs that brought on opinionists that offered their opinion and that, of course, is not illegal prior to the facts being determined. However, if any of those news programs that allowed that opinion to be offered did NOT report on the fact that the findings were otherwise, they could be held liable for slander for they allowed an opinion to be expressed to their audience and did not show factual proof that the opinion was wrong. And, if in fact, such is the case, then the news program could be found liable for affecting the reputation of the subject.

If that is the basis for his lawsuit, he will lose. But you still haven't provided any quotes to support even that lawsuit.
If you want to argue he has a case, you are going to have to produce some damaging quotes.

Me? I am not one saying he has a lawsuit. I doubt he does.

There is only one way he may have a lawsuit...

If any form of NEWS media out there...be it a network, a local affiliate, or a newspaper.....had an opinionist offer their opinion PRIOR to the final findings (nothing wrong with that)...and that opinion claimed that Officer Wilson shot Michael Brown in cold blood (again, nothing wrong with offering an opinion).....but that same newspaper or news program did NOT subsequently report on the findings when the findings were released....then he may have a case that that newspaper of news program did not allow the opinion to be refuted by facts to their audience.....allowing their audience to make an inaccurate judgment call on Officer Wilson.

Bear in mind...in a case such as this, it is assumed that there is at least one individual who gets ALL of their news from only one source....so saying "they could have heard the truth elsewhere" is not a defense.

Otherwise, I do not see how he would have a case.

Furthermore, if you recall, when that gentleman had a cardiac arrest during an arrest on Staten Island in New York, the news local news media all reported that the officer used an "unsanctioned by the NYPD" choke hold. When the correction came out by the NYPD that it was not an unsanctioned choke hold, but, instead, an allowed AND TAUGHT "control hold", all local news media, to my recollection, reported on that correction.

They had to or they would have been liable for slanderous reporting on the officer in question.

 

[nodoginnafight]

I think that is the only thing this going to get these lying, misleading LAMEstream media under control

PEOPLE need to start suing them out of business preferable. I was never big on suing but for them. I SAY go for it

OK, so can you please show me the media's remarks that constitute libel or slander?

Actually, there were many news programs that brought on opinionists that offered their opinion and that, of course, is not illegal prior to the facts being determined. However, if any of those news programs that allowed that opinion to be offered did NOT report on the fact that the findings were otherwise, they could be held liable for slander for they allowed an opinion to be expressed to their audience and did not show factual proof that the opinion was wrong. And, if in fact, such is the case, then the news program could be found liable for affecting the reputation of the subject.

If that is the basis for his lawsuit, he will lose. But you still haven't provided any quotes to support even that lawsuit.
If you want to argue he has a case, you are going to have to produce some damaging quotes.

Me? I am not one saying he has a lawsuit. I doubt he does.

There is only one way he may have a lawsuit...

If any form of NEWS media out there...be it a network, a local affiliate, or a newspaper.....had an opinionist offer their opinion PRIOR to the final findings (nothing wrong with that)...and that opinion claimed that Officer Wilson shot Michael Brown in cold blood (again, nothing wrong with offering an opinion).....but that same newspaper or news program did NOT subsequently report on the findings when the findings were released....then he may have a case that that newspaper of news program did not allow the opinion to be refuted by facts to their audience.....allowing their audience to make an inaccurate judgment call on Officer Wilson.

Bear in mind...in a case such as this, it is assumed that there is at least one individual who gets ALL of their news from only one source....so saying "they could have heard the truth elsewhere" is not a defense.

Otherwise, I do not see how he would have a case.

He would also have to prove that report was what caused him to have to quit his job or move out of town or suffer any other damages. But yeah, I think we're on pretty much the same page here.

 

[Jarhead]

I think that is the only thing this going to get these lying, misleading LAMEstream media under control

PEOPLE need to start suing them out of business preferable. I was never big on suing but for them. I SAY go for it

OK, so can you please show me the media's remarks that constitute libel or slander?

Actually, there were many news programs that brought on opinionists that offered their opinion and that, of course, is not illegal prior to the facts being determined. However, if any of those news programs that allowed that opinion to be offered did NOT report on the fact that the findings were otherwise, they could be held liable for slander for they allowed an opinion to be expressed to their audience and did not show factual proof that the opinion was wrong. And, if in fact, such is the case, then the news program could be found liable for affecting the reputation of the subject.

If that is the basis for his lawsuit, he will lose. But you still haven't provided any quotes to support even that lawsuit.
If you want to argue he has a case, you are going to have to produce some damaging quotes.

Me? I am not one saying he has a lawsuit. I doubt he does.

There is only one way he may have a lawsuit...

If any form of NEWS media out there...be it a network, a local affiliate, or a newspaper.....had an opinionist offer their opinion PRIOR to the final findings (nothing wrong with that)...and that opinion claimed that Officer Wilson shot Michael Brown in cold blood (again, nothing wrong with offering an opinion).....but that same newspaper or news program did NOT subsequently report on the findings when the findings were released....then he may have a case that that newspaper of news program did not allow the opinion to be refuted by facts to their audience.....allowing their audience to make an inaccurate judgment call on Officer Wilson.

Bear in mind...in a case such as this, it is assumed that there is at least one individual who gets ALL of their news from only one source....so saying "they could have heard the truth elsewhere" is not a defense.

Otherwise, I do not see how he would have a case.

He would also have to prove that report was what caused him to have to quit his job or move out of town or suffer any other damages. But yeah, I think we're on pretty much the same page here.

True....first he would have to prove that a news media intentionally allowed its audience to believe he shot the man in cold blood....

And then he would have to prove that it had a direct affect on his ability to earn an income and live a stable life.

A tall order.

 

[NYcarbineer]

Does officer Wilson of Ferguson, Missouri have grounds for a civil case against the U.S. news media , in particularly extreme leftist networks like MSNBC or publications like the NY Times and Washington Post for libel and slander? The whole rush to judgement with "Hand's Up Don't Shoot" mantra that turned out to be a lie has totally destroyed officer Wilson's career.

What's the libel?

 

[Redfish]

Yes, and against obama and sharpton as well.

What?

for inciting riots and civil unrest.

 

[Redfish]

OK, so can you please show me the media's remarks that constitute libel or slander?

Actually, there were many news programs that brought on opinionists that offered their opinion and that, of course, is not illegal prior to the facts being determined. However, if any of those news programs that allowed that opinion to be offered did NOT report on the fact that the findings were otherwise, they could be held liable for slander for they allowed an opinion to be expressed to their audience and did not show factual proof that the opinion was wrong. And, if in fact, such is the case, then the news program could be found liable for affecting the reputation of the subject.

If that is the basis for his lawsuit, he will lose. But you still haven't provided any quotes to support even that lawsuit.
If you want to argue he has a case, you are going to have to produce some damaging quotes.

Me? I am not one saying he has a lawsuit. I doubt he does.

There is only one way he may have a lawsuit...

If any form of NEWS media out there...be it a network, a local affiliate, or a newspaper.....had an opinionist offer their opinion PRIOR to the final findings (nothing wrong with that)...and that opinion claimed that Officer Wilson shot Michael Brown in cold blood (again, nothing wrong with offering an opinion).....but that same newspaper or news program did NOT subsequently report on the findings when the findings were released....then he may have a case that that newspaper of news program did not allow the opinion to be refuted by facts to their audience.....allowing their audience to make an inaccurate judgment call on Officer Wilson.

Bear in mind...in a case such as this, it is assumed that there is at least one individual who gets ALL of their news from only one source....so saying "they could have heard the truth elsewhere" is not a defense.

Otherwise, I do not see how he would have a case.

He would also have to prove that report was what caused him to have to quit his job or move out of town or suffer any other damages. But yeah, I think we're on pretty much the same page here.

True....first he would have to prove that a news media intentionally allowed its audience to believe he shot the man in cold blood....

And then he would have to prove that it had a direct affect on his ability to earn an income and live a stable life.

A tall order.

all of that is very easy to establish. probably won't happen, but it should. The media and a few left wing rabble rousers should not be acting as judge, jury, and executioner.

 

[Bush92]

Does officer Wilson of Ferguson, Missouri have grounds for a civil case against the U.S. news media , in particularly extreme leftist networks like MSNBC or publications like the NY Times and Washington Post for libel and slander? The whole rush to judgement with "Hand's Up Don't Shoot" mantra that turned out to be a lie has totally destroyed officer Wilson's career.

What's the libel?

They jumped to conclusions about "hands up don't shoot' and smeared Wilson in the court of public opinion.