- My Forums
- Tiger Rant
- LSU Recruiting
- SEC Rant
- Saints Talk
- Pelicans Talk
- More Sports Board
- Coaching Changes
- Fantasy Sports
- Golf Board
- Soccer Board
- O-T Lounge
- Tech Board
- Home/Garden Board
- Outdoor Board
- Health/Fitness Board
- Movie/TV Board
- Book Board
- Music Board
- Political Talk
- Money Talk
- Fark Board
- Gaming Board
- Travel Board
- Food/Drink Board
- Ticket Exchange
- TD Help Board
Customize My Forums- View All Forums
- Show Left Links
- Topic Sort Options
- Trending Topics
- Recent Topics
- Active Topics
Started By
Message
2
Posted on 5/1/15 at 10:22 am to Gris Gris
(no message)
This post was edited on 5/26/23 at 1:10 am
Posted on 5/1/15 at 10:28 am to Sailin Tiger
quote:
What then of federal privacy and confidentiality regulations or laws
quote:
'm open to correction but please tell me how this doesnt apply.
There's no such thing as a federal privacy or confidentiality regulation or law that applies in any way to this case or was violated.
Posted on 5/1/15 at 10:29 am to DelU249
quote:
would at least want the discovery process to find out who said what to whom
Good luck getting there. Discovery is not a fishing expedition. You have to prove a legitimate claim before you even get there.
Posted on 5/1/15 at 10:30 am to Breesus
(no message)
This post was edited on 5/26/23 at 1:09 am
Posted on 5/1/15 at 10:34 am to Sailin Tiger
quote:
The right to be secure in your person?
Doesn't apply and wasn't violated.
quote:
unless I am really misunderstanding something
You're misunderstanding alot of things. The Constitution and basic federal and state laws for one.
quote:
federal privacy or "confidentiality laws" were violated by releasing the full name of a NON SUSPECT to the public without proper consent and notification.
Can you link me to where these confidentiality laws exist in America?
quote:
he has anything to do with this police need to abide by the laws and regulations that are put in place to keep their power in check so that they dont start a witchhunt.
As far as the facts show right now they have been doing absolutely that.
Posted on 5/1/15 at 10:34 am to Gris Gris
quote:
I knew this thread would turn into a cluster. The number and content of "rights" people dream up are incredible
Well there does appear to be an inordinate amount of legal and constitutional scholars that have made an appearance in this thread.
Now for some actual jurisprudence:
In order to prevail in a suit for defamation, plaintiff has the burden of proving by a preponderance of the evidence five essential elements, and cause of action fails if plaintiff fails to prove even one of these elements: ?defamatory words, publication, falsity, malice and resulting injury. Brown v. Connor, App. 5 Cir.2003, 860 So.2d 27, 03-282 (La.App. 5 Cir. 10/15/03).
1. I don't see anything where "defamatory" words have been published. From all accounts the BRPD have explicitly stated that Collins "is not a suspect"
2. What falsities have the police or media published?
Take this case for example:
Article published in local newspaper in which it was reported that deputy was arrested for possession of marijuana, introduction of contraband into penal facility, and malfeasance in office, and that he was fired for violating correctional facility's policies and procedures did not constitute defamation per se, in deputy's action against sheriff and other facility personnel; article simply reported fact of deputy's arrest and charges filed against him and termination, and did not set forth any details or provide false information. Landry v. Duncan, App. 5 Cir.2005, 902 So.2d 1098
Posted on 5/1/15 at 10:34 am to DelU249
I don't know why you're so bent on making me hate you. I used to like you.
Posted on 5/1/15 at 10:36 am to Alt26
They'd have a hard time with falsity, malice, defamatory, and probably even damages
Posted on 5/1/15 at 10:38 am to Breesus
(no message)
This post was edited on 5/26/23 at 1:09 am
Posted on 5/1/15 at 10:42 am to DelU249
quote:
I can't say things with the sole intent of making you like me.
Yes you can!
You know you want to. Remember when you got banned out to Saints Report. And it sucked. I'm about to wish that on you again.
Posted on 5/1/15 at 10:52 am to Alt26
quote:
Now for some actual jurisprudence:
Well, actual jurisprudence doesn't come into play for most folks in this thread. All of those magical rights that are out there, ya know. Amazing.
Posted on 5/1/15 at 11:06 am to Alt26
quote:
In order to prevail in a suit for defamation, plaintiff has the burden of proving by a preponderance of the evidence five essential elements, and cause of action fails if plaintiff fails to prove even one of these elements: ?defamatory words, publication, falsity, malice and resulting injury. Brown v. Connor, App. 5 Cir.2003, 860 So.2d 27, 03-282 (La.App. 5 Cir. 10/15/03).
Collins case is not so much in defamation by the BRPD but in the potential of persons leaking information damaging to his value in the draft. These persons could be in serious financial jeopardy if speaking without authorization or the facts. If ESPN secured this info through an unauthorized leak and the situation is not as reported then they and the source could be liable for damages. Also the reports on the media is that Collins is wanted for questioning in a murder investigation but some stories report that the BRPD is simply looking for paternity here. If that is the case then the people who have initiated this inaccurate story have to have some liability to his loss of value.
This case goes down into the same issues as someone yelling "fire" in a crowded theater except the potential harm is public safety. People are protected in their rights to free speech but they are also liable for the consequences of what they may say. People choosing to run their mouth on the news services about this subject without any information are treading on thin ice.
This post was edited on 5/1/15 at 11:09 am
Posted on 5/1/15 at 11:11 am to Breesus
(no message)
This post was edited on 5/26/23 at 1:08 am
Posted on 5/1/15 at 11:11 am to DelU249
(no message)
This post was edited on 5/26/23 at 1:08 am
Posted on 5/1/15 at 11:23 am to GetmorewithLes
quote:You don't have a clue what you are talking about.
Collins case is not so much in defamation by the BRPD but in the potential of persons leaking information damaging to his value in the draft. These persons could be in serious financial jeopardy if speaking without authorization or the facts. If ESPN secured this info through an unauthorized leak and the situation is not as reported then they and the source could be liable for damages
Posted on 5/1/15 at 11:24 am to theantiquetiger
quote:
Life goes on
Not for the victim.
Posted on 5/1/15 at 11:26 am to theantiquetiger
Yeah that is the solution. Let Collins spend his signing money on lawyer fees, and the citizens of the city of BR can pay the rest.
Posted on 5/1/15 at 11:36 am to FT
Posted on 5/1/15 at 11:41 am to theantiquetiger
quote:
only wanted for questioning in someone else's alibi, and has nothing to do with the case.
I think the reports said exactly that.
Page 7 of 16
Popular
Back to top
Follow TigerDroppings for LSU Football News