Seems like the judge is allowing the countersuit to proceed on the one narrow statement that Winters had been “convicted” of domestic abuse for beating his girlfriend. In actuality, Newton Police Officer Nathan Winters had orders of protection entered and extended several times because he was beating his girlfriend. Winters has not been convicted of domestic abuse, so the statement could be considered defamatory, and that’s why it wasn’t immediately dismissed with the rest of the claims.
Sounds like you know what you’re talking about, and I don’t — doesn’t defamation have to be ‘intentional’? Sounds like, at worst, a misstatement that can be rewinded with a published correction.
Exactly. You have to knowingly or negligently provide false information for it to be defamation. A kid not knowing that a restraining order doesn’t equal a conviction should be neither.
They also have to prove that the statements caused actual damages.
If I’m reading this right, this is what the countersuit would have to prove. Basically, the grounds would be “Yeah, he did say something untrue, so now I’ll let you try to prove that he did so intentionally”
Police are bastards, but we might want to check the article out before switching to outrage mode
As part of his social-media postings, Galanakis made several statements, alleging he “basically got kidnapped then raped by the NPD all night,” and falsely indicating Winters had been “convicted” of domestic abuse for beating up a girlfriend.
So it’s not the posting of the video w/ commentary that they’re saying it’s defamatory, it’s claiming he was ‘raped’ and the false domestic abuse accusation. Stupid teen was in an excellent position for compensation but he’s probably wrecked his chances with statements like that.
Try reading the article before you start polishing those boots.
As for the city’s complaint that Galanakis claimed to have been “kidnapped then raped,” Judge Locher found that statement was a clear and allowable expression of opinion and rhetorical hyperbole.
Lol I don’t know, man. Your post was very “hey fellow kids, the po-po are total bastards BUT you also need to read the article to see why they’re right” and then you rushed to defend them. Without reading the article. Which you were chiding people for not doing.
Edit 2 seconds later: you also called Galanakis a “stupid teen” which makes me think you’re probably in the wrong community.
I used a descriptor, so what. If he was a grown man who gobbed off on social media before he finished his court case, I’d have called him a stupid man. And, you don’t get to tell me what community I can be in, thanks. I haven’t broken any rules. Finally, I’m not defending anyone, just pointing out why they were counter-claiming.
I can see why people didn’t like my comment, fair enough. But I’m not a bootlicker or police supporter for adding info I thought others had missed. We all make mistakes from time to time.
I used a descriptor, so what. If he was a grown man who gobbed off on social media before he finished his court case, I’d have called him a stupid man.
Except he’s not stupid. The only reason we’re talking about this is because he brought attention to it and fought back against a corrupt institution by posting it on social media.
“I’m not a bootlicker!” says the dude whose mouth is full of boot.
Yeah, that’ll never hold up. That doesn’t even come into the ballpark of defamation.
Seems like the judge is allowing the countersuit to proceed on the one narrow statement that Winters had been “convicted” of domestic abuse for beating his girlfriend. In actuality, Newton Police Officer Nathan Winters had orders of protection entered and extended several times because he was beating his girlfriend. Winters has not been convicted of domestic abuse, so the statement could be considered defamatory, and that’s why it wasn’t immediately dismissed with the rest of the claims.
Sounds like you know what you’re talking about, and I don’t — doesn’t defamation have to be ‘intentional’? Sounds like, at worst, a misstatement that can be rewinded with a published correction.
Exactly. You have to knowingly or negligently provide false information for it to be defamation. A kid not knowing that a restraining order doesn’t equal a conviction should be neither.
They also have to prove that the statements caused actual damages.
If I’m reading this right, this is what the countersuit would have to prove. Basically, the grounds would be “Yeah, he did say something untrue, so now I’ll let you try to prove that he did so intentionally”
Looks like an effort to suppress resistance to police bastards
Police are bastards, but we might want to check the article out before switching to outrage mode
So it’s not the posting of the video w/ commentary that they’re saying it’s defamatory, it’s claiming he was ‘raped’ and the false domestic abuse accusation. Stupid teen was in an excellent position for compensation but he’s probably wrecked his chances with statements like that.
Try reading the article before you start polishing those boots.
lol yeah I’m a bootlicker who thinks cops are bastards. Great logic.
Lol I don’t know, man. Your post was very “hey fellow kids, the po-po are total bastards BUT you also need to read the article to see why they’re right” and then you rushed to defend them. Without reading the article. Which you were chiding people for not doing.
Edit 2 seconds later: you also called Galanakis a “stupid teen” which makes me think you’re probably in the wrong community.
I used a descriptor, so what. If he was a grown man who gobbed off on social media before he finished his court case, I’d have called him a stupid man. And, you don’t get to tell me what community I can be in, thanks. I haven’t broken any rules. Finally, I’m not defending anyone, just pointing out why they were counter-claiming.
I can see why people didn’t like my comment, fair enough. But I’m not a bootlicker or police supporter for adding info I thought others had missed. We all make mistakes from time to time.
If you made a mistake just say that and dip.
Except he’s not stupid. The only reason we’re talking about this is because he brought attention to it and fought back against a corrupt institution by posting it on social media.
“I’m not a bootlicker!” says the dude whose mouth is full of boot.
Nobody said you were commenting in good faith…
Lol, confidently incorrect.
wHy DoNt U cHeCk oUt thE aRtiClE beForE swiTChinG to RaGE mODe?