Here is the link to the fall sports streaming schedule.
https://appstatesports.com/news/2023/8/ ... edule.aspx
https://appstatesports.com/news/2023/8/ ... edule.aspx
Boone Vandalism Case
-
- Posts: 7496
- Joined: Tue Mar 26, 2013 8:59 am
- School: Appalachian State
- Has thanked: 958 times
- Been thanked: 900 times
- Contact:
Re: Boone Vandalism Case
I personally don't care whether the graffiti was anti-Trump or pro-Trump or pro-Hillary or anti-Hillary. The fact is they caused an estimated $10,000 worth of damage. If one of the spray paintings was a brick building, it could cost a ton more to sandblast the brick. The squad car can't be remedied by just washing off the spray paint. It appeared that it covered part of the police logo.Thanks to Fox News this is a national incident and puts a black mark on ASU. If Fox picked it up, surely other national media sources did likewise.
NewApp formerly known as JCline
If you can't take it, don't dish it out.
Google SUX
If you can't take it, don't dish it out.
Google SUX
-
- Posts: 7496
- Joined: Tue Mar 26, 2013 8:59 am
- School: Appalachian State
- Has thanked: 958 times
- Been thanked: 900 times
- Contact:
Re: Boone Vandalism Case
http://www.wcnc.com/news/local/4-women- ... /393961956
http://www.wsoctv.com/news/local/four-p ... /486900457
http://www.wbtv.com/story/34318514/boon ... m-suspects
http://www.wataugademocrat.com/news/mul ... cfc36.html
http://www.wfmynews2.com/news/crime/4-w ... /393961338
http://abc11.com/news/4-accused-of-spra ... c/1727882/
http://hotair.com/archives/2017/01/30/4 ... ump-march/
http://www.wsoctv.com/news/local/four-p ... /486900457
http://www.wbtv.com/story/34318514/boon ... m-suspects
http://www.wataugademocrat.com/news/mul ... cfc36.html
http://www.wfmynews2.com/news/crime/4-w ... /393961338
http://abc11.com/news/4-accused-of-spra ... c/1727882/
http://hotair.com/archives/2017/01/30/4 ... ump-march/
NewApp formerly known as JCline
If you can't take it, don't dish it out.
Google SUX
If you can't take it, don't dish it out.
Google SUX
-
- Posts: 129
- Joined: Tue Oct 21, 2014 9:47 am
- School: Appalachian State
- Has thanked: 24 times
- Been thanked: 42 times
Re: Boone Vandalism Case
Fox picked it up because it fits their sensationalist "news" agenda. And no surprise that local, NC stations will post something about it. But no reputable national news services will pick this up because college kids spray painting stuff is just not that big of a story...NewApp wrote:I personally don't care whether the graffiti was anti-Trump or pro-Trump or pro-Hillary or anti-Hillary. The fact is they caused an estimated $10,000 worth of damage. If one of the spray paintings was a brick building, it could cost a ton more to sandblast the brick. The squad car can't be remedied by just washing off the spray paint. It appeared that it covered part of the police logo.Thanks to Fox News this is a national incident and puts a black mark on ASU. If Fox picked it up, surely other national media sources did likewise.
- Gonzo
- Posts: 4894
- Joined: Mon Aug 27, 2012 2:11 pm
- School: Appalachian State
- Has thanked: 564 times
- Been thanked: 1975 times
Re: Boone Vandalism Case
You're taking this thread to the realm of an abolished discussion category.
-
- Posts: 129
- Joined: Tue Oct 21, 2014 9:47 am
- School: Appalachian State
- Has thanked: 24 times
- Been thanked: 42 times
Re: Boone Vandalism Case
Lol. I can't believe that's a real video. I thought it was a spoof.Appftw wrote:https://youtu.be/_Med86wVCSI
-
- Posts: 3285
- Joined: Mon Nov 26, 2007 2:03 pm
- Has thanked: 1064 times
- Been thanked: 427 times
Re: Boone Vandalism Case
That's twice you've blown the Fox news dog whistle. Fox news is no more "sensationalist" than CNN, MSNBC or any other mainstream corporate media source. It's all heavily biased and more opinion than just reporting the news. Most people are intellectually lazy and just tune in to whatever fits their own bias. You have to dig and read several different sources to get a balanced perspective these days. I watch Fox news sometimes but I've also been a NYT subscriber for years. The truth is somewhere in the middle.Appdoggy wrote:Fox picked it up because it fits their sensationalist "news" agenda. And no surprise that local, NC stations will post something about it. But no reputable national news services will pick this up because college kids spray painting stuff is just not that big of a story...NewApp wrote:I personally don't care whether the graffiti was anti-Trump or pro-Trump or pro-Hillary or anti-Hillary. The fact is they caused an estimated $10,000 worth of damage. If one of the spray paintings was a brick building, it could cost a ton more to sandblast the brick. The squad car can't be remedied by just washing off the spray paint. It appeared that it covered part of the police logo.Thanks to Fox News this is a national incident and puts a black mark on ASU. If Fox picked it up, surely other national media sources did likewise.
Last edited by fjblair on Wed Feb 01, 2017 3:39 pm, edited 1 time in total.
-
- Posts: 3861
- Joined: Tue Jul 17, 2012 6:17 am
- School: Appalachian State
- Has thanked: 1300 times
- Been thanked: 1035 times
Re: Boone Vandalism Case
test one two
Last edited by WataugaMan on Wed Feb 01, 2017 9:08 am, edited 2 times in total.
-
- Posts: 3285
- Joined: Mon Nov 26, 2007 2:03 pm
- Has thanked: 1064 times
- Been thanked: 427 times
Re: Boone Vandalism Case
oops didn't mean to make this post
Last edited by fjblair on Wed Feb 01, 2017 3:40 pm, edited 2 times in total.
-
- Posts: 13036
- Joined: Tue Jun 27, 2000 8:42 am
- Has thanked: 3027 times
- Been thanked: 4678 times
Re: Boone Vandalism Case
Hard to find a news outlet that isn't this unfortunately.Appdoggy wrote: sensationalist "news" agenda
-
- Posts: 457
- Joined: Mon Nov 30, 2009 1:44 pm
- School: Appalachian State
- Has thanked: 254 times
- Been thanked: 181 times
Re: Boone Vandalism Case
I think people don't quite understand what makes libel and slander actionable. People can have an opinion and say mean stuff in North Carolina. Even untrue things if its an opinion and not stated as fact.Appdoggy wrote:You're learning!Boone Goon wrote:True. Thanks for the reminder...at least and in all actuality in the case of the fraternity members it was libel, but I digress.Gonzo wrote:Slander isn't a crime, dawg. Civil cause of action maybe.Boone Goon wrote:It's a fair question and I'll wait to answer until I have specifics on the vandalism conducted by the 2 MBB players.T-Dog wrote:I wonder how many people here who are calling for felony charges and expulsion for vandalism are going to feel the same about the two App basketball players who were arrested for vandalism (and pot)? All first-time offenders.
And before anyone asks, I currently don't know any more details about the latter's case.
I don't see these 4 women as "first-time offender"s. At least in the case of Grainger, she's guilty of slander, but the 4 white male victims didn't bring a case against her.
Defamation is the actual cause of action in this state. Libel if written, slander if spoken. Our courts have long recognized two actionable classes of oral defamation: slander per se and slander per quod. That is, the false remarks in themselves (per se ) may form the basis of an action for damages, in which case both malice and damage are, as a matter of law, presumed; or the false utterance may sustain an action only when causing some special damage (per quod ), in which case both the malice and the special damage ($$$) must be alleged and proved.Slander per quod involves a spoken statement of which the harmful character does not appear on its face as a matter of general acceptance, but rather becomes clear after other facts show some financial injury as the result of the defamatory statement.
N.C. courts have consistently stated that only three types of defamatory statements, will support an action for slander per se: “those which (1) charge the person filing suit with a crime or offense involving moral turpitude, (2) impeach his trade or profession, or (3) impute to him a loathsome disease.”
Similarly, Libel per se is a publication which, when considered alone without explanatory circumstances: (1) charges that a person has committed an infamous crime; (2) charges a person with having an infectious disease; (3) tends to impeach a person in that person's trade or profession; or (4) otherwise tends to subject one to ridicule, contempt or disgrace. However, pure expression of opinions are protected because they fail to assert actual facts.
Libel per quod may be asserted when a publication is not obviously defamatory, but when considered in conjunction with innuendo, and explanatory circumstances it becomes libelous. However, like with slander per quod you must prove you suffered financial injury as a result of the false statement's publication.
Slander and Libel cases are notoriously hard to win as a plaintiff. Truth is a defense. Opinion is a defense. I don't think any of this conduct is legally actionable as libel or slander. Maybe with regards to her rape statements if she had directed them at a specific fraternity member or even a specific organization (maybe). But saying that all fraternity members are rapists, I think is likely to be found tantamount to an opinion. An unsavory, dumb opinion but still one nonetheless. That's it for this morning's edition of Judge Joe Brown.
- WVAPPeer
- Posts: 12264
- Joined: Wed Aug 22, 2007 11:14 am
- School: Other
- Location: Born: Almost Heaven
- Has thanked: 4611 times
- Been thanked: 2519 times
Re: Boone Vandalism Case
That's so true --- you can't tune in any of the main outlets without the first words you see - "BREAKING NEWS" - usually it is the same story they have reported all day ---Saint3333 wrote:Hard to find a news outlet that isn't this unfortunately.Appdoggy wrote: sensationalist "news" agenda
I watch CNN, MSNBC and some of Fox (when they actually have people who know what they are talking about) - I think CNN is the most balanced with their "panels" - Fox is the worst (sorry, I forgot their slogan was "fair and balanced")
"Montani Semper Liberi"
The Dude Abides!!!
The Dude Abides!!!
- appst89
- Site Admin
- Posts: 9914
- Joined: Mon Jun 26, 2000 3:26 am
- School: Appalachian State
- Has thanked: 334 times
- Been thanked: 2198 times
-
- Posts: 129
- Joined: Tue Oct 21, 2014 9:47 am
- School: Appalachian State
- Has thanked: 24 times
- Been thanked: 42 times
Re: Boone Vandalism Case
Oh I definitely agree. And all you have to do is look at their who they are owned by/corporate advertisers to know what their agenda is. But Fox has to be the most unapologetically unbalanced network. Not really debatable.fjblair wrote:That's twice you've blown the Fox news whistle. Fox news is no more "sensationalist" than CNN, MSNBC or any other mainstream corporate media source. It's all heavily biased and more opinion than just reporting the news. Most people are intellectually lazy and just tune in to whatever fits their own bias. You have to dig and read several different sources to get a balanced perspective these days. I watch Fox news sometimes but I've also been a NYT subscriber for years. The truth is somewhere in the middle.Appdoggy wrote:Fox picked it up because it fits their sensationalist "news" agenda. And no surprise that local, NC stations will post something about it. But no reputable national news services will pick this up because college kids spray painting stuff is just not that big of a story...NewApp wrote:I personally don't care whether the graffiti was anti-Trump or pro-Trump or pro-Hillary or anti-Hillary. The fact is they caused an estimated $10,000 worth of damage. If one of the spray paintings was a brick building, it could cost a ton more to sandblast the brick. The squad car can't be remedied by just washing off the spray paint. It appeared that it covered part of the police logo.Thanks to Fox News this is a national incident and puts a black mark on ASU. If Fox picked it up, surely other national media sources did likewise.
-
- Posts: 129
- Joined: Tue Oct 21, 2014 9:47 am
- School: Appalachian State
- Has thanked: 24 times
- Been thanked: 42 times
Re: Boone Vandalism Case
+1. But also the point was regardless of whether any of these individuals were to face these claims in a civil action, it would have no affect on their criminal record whatsoever and would have no bearing on a criminal sentence.MtnMan09 wrote:I think people don't quite understand what makes libel and slander actionable. People can have an opinion and say mean stuff in North Carolina. Even untrue things if its an opinion and not stated as fact.Appdoggy wrote:You're learning!Boone Goon wrote:True. Thanks for the reminder...at least and in all actuality in the case of the fraternity members it was libel, but I digress.Gonzo wrote:Slander isn't a crime, dawg. Civil cause of action maybe.Boone Goon wrote:
It's a fair question and I'll wait to answer until I have specifics on the vandalism conducted by the 2 MBB players.
I don't see these 4 women as "first-time offender"s. At least in the case of Grainger, she's guilty of slander, but the 4 white male victims didn't bring a case against her.
Defamation is the actual cause of action in this state. Libel if written, slander if spoken. Our courts have long recognized two actionable classes of oral defamation: slander per se and slander per quod. That is, the false remarks in themselves (per se ) may form the basis of an action for damages, in which case both malice and damage are, as a matter of law, presumed; or the false utterance may sustain an action only when causing some special damage (per quod ), in which case both the malice and the special damage ($$$) must be alleged and proved.Slander per quod involves a spoken statement of which the harmful character does not appear on its face as a matter of general acceptance, but rather becomes clear after other facts show some financial injury as the result of the defamatory statement.
N.C. courts have consistently stated that only three types of defamatory statements, will support an action for slander per se: “those which (1) charge the person filing suit with a crime or offense involving moral turpitude, (2) impeach his trade or profession, or (3) impute to him a loathsome disease.”
Similarly, Libel per se is a publication which, when considered alone without explanatory circumstances: (1) charges that a person has committed an infamous crime; (2) charges a person with having an infectious disease; (3) tends to impeach a person in that person's trade or profession; or (4) otherwise tends to subject one to ridicule, contempt or disgrace. However, pure expression of opinions are protected because they fail to assert actual facts.
Libel per quod may be asserted when a publication is not obviously defamatory, but when considered in conjunction with innuendo, and explanatory circumstances it becomes libelous. However, like with slander per quod you must prove you suffered financial injury as a result of the false statement's publication.
Slander and Libel cases are notoriously hard to win as a plaintiff. Truth is a defense. Opinion is a defense. I don't think any of this conduct is legally actionable as libel or slander. Maybe with regards to her rape statements if she had directed them at a specific fraternity member or even a specific organization (maybe). But saying that all fraternity members are rapists, I think is likely to be found tantamount to an opinion. An unsavory, dumb opinion but still one nonetheless. That's it for this morning's edition of Judge Joe Brown.
- Gonzo
- Posts: 4894
- Joined: Mon Aug 27, 2012 2:11 pm
- School: Appalachian State
- Has thanked: 564 times
- Been thanked: 1975 times
Re: Boone Vandalism Case
Bar essay score: 9/10MtnMan09 wrote:I think people don't quite understand what makes libel and slander actionable. People can have an opinion and say mean stuff in North Carolina. Even untrue things if its an opinion and not stated as fact.Appdoggy wrote:You're learning!Boone Goon wrote:True. Thanks for the reminder...at least and in all actuality in the case of the fraternity members it was libel, but I digress.Gonzo wrote:Slander isn't a crime, dawg. Civil cause of action maybe.Boone Goon wrote:
It's a fair question and I'll wait to answer until I have specifics on the vandalism conducted by the 2 MBB players.
I don't see these 4 women as "first-time offender"s. At least in the case of Grainger, she's guilty of slander, but the 4 white male victims didn't bring a case against her.
Defamation is the actual cause of action in this state. Libel if written, slander if spoken. Our courts have long recognized two actionable classes of oral defamation: slander per se and slander per quod. That is, the false remarks in themselves (per se ) may form the basis of an action for damages, in which case both malice and damage are, as a matter of law, presumed; or the false utterance may sustain an action only when causing some special damage (per quod ), in which case both the malice and the special damage ($$$) must be alleged and proved.Slander per quod involves a spoken statement of which the harmful character does not appear on its face as a matter of general acceptance, but rather becomes clear after other facts show some financial injury as the result of the defamatory statement.
N.C. courts have consistently stated that only three types of defamatory statements, will support an action for slander per se: “those which (1) charge the person filing suit with a crime or offense involving moral turpitude, (2) impeach his trade or profession, or (3) impute to him a loathsome disease.”
Similarly, Libel per se is a publication which, when considered alone without explanatory circumstances: (1) charges that a person has committed an infamous crime; (2) charges a person with having an infectious disease; (3) tends to impeach a person in that person's trade or profession; or (4) otherwise tends to subject one to ridicule, contempt or disgrace. However, pure expression of opinions are protected because they fail to assert actual facts.
Libel per quod may be asserted when a publication is not obviously defamatory, but when considered in conjunction with innuendo, and explanatory circumstances it becomes libelous. However, like with slander per quod you must prove you suffered financial injury as a result of the false statement's publication.
Slander and Libel cases are notoriously hard to win as a plaintiff. Truth is a defense. Opinion is a defense. I don't think any of this conduct is legally actionable as libel or slander. Maybe with regards to her rape statements if she had directed them at a specific fraternity member or even a specific organization (maybe). But saying that all fraternity members are rapists, I think is likely to be found tantamount to an opinion. An unsavory, dumb opinion but still one nonetheless. That's it for this morning's edition of Judge Joe Brown.
-
- Posts: 457
- Joined: Mon Nov 30, 2009 1:44 pm
- School: Appalachian State
- Has thanked: 254 times
- Been thanked: 181 times
Re: Boone Vandalism Case
Yeah Yeah Yeah. Slacked on the analysis but I was playing dangerously in TL:DR territory.Gonzo wrote:Bar essay score: 9/10MtnMan09 wrote:I think people don't quite understand what makes libel and slander actionable. People can have an opinion and say mean stuff in North Carolina. Even untrue things if its an opinion and not stated as fact.Appdoggy wrote:You're learning!Boone Goon wrote:True. Thanks for the reminder...at least and in all actuality in the case of the fraternity members it was libel, but I digress.Gonzo wrote: Slander isn't a crime, dawg. Civil cause of action maybe.
Defamation is the actual cause of action in this state. Libel if written, slander if spoken. Our courts have long recognized two actionable classes of oral defamation: slander per se and slander per quod. That is, the false remarks in themselves (per se ) may form the basis of an action for damages, in which case both malice and damage are, as a matter of law, presumed; or the false utterance may sustain an action only when causing some special damage (per quod ), in which case both the malice and the special damage ($$$) must be alleged and proved.Slander per quod involves a spoken statement of which the harmful character does not appear on its face as a matter of general acceptance, but rather becomes clear after other facts show some financial injury as the result of the defamatory statement.
N.C. courts have consistently stated that only three types of defamatory statements, will support an action for slander per se: “those which (1) charge the person filing suit with a crime or offense involving moral turpitude, (2) impeach his trade or profession, or (3) impute to him a loathsome disease.”
Similarly, Libel per se is a publication which, when considered alone without explanatory circumstances: (1) charges that a person has committed an infamous crime; (2) charges a person with having an infectious disease; (3) tends to impeach a person in that person's trade or profession; or (4) otherwise tends to subject one to ridicule, contempt or disgrace. However, pure expression of opinions are protected because they fail to assert actual facts.
Libel per quod may be asserted when a publication is not obviously defamatory, but when considered in conjunction with innuendo, and explanatory circumstances it becomes libelous. However, like with slander per quod you must prove you suffered financial injury as a result of the false statement's publication.
Slander and Libel cases are notoriously hard to win as a plaintiff. Truth is a defense. Opinion is a defense. I don't think any of this conduct is legally actionable as libel or slander. Maybe with regards to her rape statements if she had directed them at a specific fraternity member or even a specific organization (maybe). But saying that all fraternity members are rapists, I think is likely to be found tantamount to an opinion. An unsavory, dumb opinion but still one nonetheless. That's it for this morning's edition of Judge Joe Brown.
-
- Posts: 709
- Joined: Sat Aug 31, 2013 5:36 pm
- School: Appalachian State
- Location: Triangle
- Has thanked: 716 times
- Been thanked: 403 times
Re: Boone Vandalism Case
Thanks for the copy/paste/google search lesson on our legal system...it fits perfectly on a message board.
This debate has slid into two corners:
Corner 1 - they don't have a criminal record...kids will be kids, it's no big deal. But if they do it again, then we'll reconsider.
Corner 2 - they have a history of bad behavior. They are 21+ year-old seniors and graduates who spray painted incendiary phrases on private businesses and government property. At least two of them have a long history of making false claims and acquisitions against members of the Appalachian community. Their behavior over multiple years is the reason I believe they should be expelled from App.
Does the university have legal grounds to do so...I don't know...will the leaders at App expel them? I doubt it.
But this isn't a political debate. It's a character debate.
This debate has slid into two corners:
Corner 1 - they don't have a criminal record...kids will be kids, it's no big deal. But if they do it again, then we'll reconsider.
Corner 2 - they have a history of bad behavior. They are 21+ year-old seniors and graduates who spray painted incendiary phrases on private businesses and government property. At least two of them have a long history of making false claims and acquisitions against members of the Appalachian community. Their behavior over multiple years is the reason I believe they should be expelled from App.
Does the university have legal grounds to do so...I don't know...will the leaders at App expel them? I doubt it.
But this isn't a political debate. It's a character debate.
-
- Posts: 457
- Joined: Mon Nov 30, 2009 1:44 pm
- School: Appalachian State
- Has thanked: 254 times
- Been thanked: 181 times
Re: Boone Vandalism Case
You put your hot take in purple? What is that? You're welcome for the lesson. Seemed warranted after about the 8th person said they were liable for slander. Despite your snark, I agree that this is a debate about character.Boone Goon wrote:Thanks for the copy/paste/google search lesson on our legal system...it fits perfectly on a message board.
This debate has slid into two corners:
Corner 1 - they don't have a criminal record...kids will be kids, it's no big deal. But if they do it again, then we'll reconsider.
Corner 2 - they have a history of bad behavior. They are 21+ year-old seniors and graduates who spray painted incendiary phrases on private businesses and government property. At least two of them have a long history of making false claims and acquisitions against members of the Appalachian community. Their behavior over multiple years is the reason I believe they should be expelled from App.
Does the university have legal grounds to do so...I don't know...will the leaders at App expel them? I doubt it.
But this isn't a political debate. It's a character debate.
-
- Posts: 709
- Joined: Sat Aug 31, 2013 5:36 pm
- School: Appalachian State
- Location: Triangle
- Has thanked: 716 times
- Been thanked: 403 times
Re: Boone Vandalism Case
Purple = sarcasm...it's been used elsewhere with minimal traction...would be extremely helpful on here to avoid the hurt feelings.