Boone Vandalism Case

[NewApp]

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]

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/

[Appdoggy]

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.

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...

[Appftw]

https://youtu.be/_Med86wVCSI

[Gonzo]

You're taking this thread to the realm of an abolished discussion category.

[Appdoggy]

https://youtu.be/_Med86wVCSI

Lol. I can't believe that's a real video. I thought it was a spoof.

[fjblair]

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.

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...

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.

[WataugaMan]

test one two

[fjblair]

oops didn't mean to make this post

[Saint3333]

sensationalist "news" agenda

Hard to find a news outlet that isn't this unfortunately.

[MtnMan09]

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.

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.

Slander isn't a crime, dawg. Civil cause of action maybe.

True. Thanks for the reminder...at least and in all actuality in the case of the fraternity members it was libel, but I digress.

You're learning!

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.

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]

sensationalist "news" agenda

Hard to find a news outlet that isn't this unfortunately.

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 ---
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")

[appst89]

Please keep the conversation on the issues that pertain to our campus.

[Appdoggy]

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.

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...

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.

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.

[Appdoggy]

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.

Slander isn't a crime, dawg. Civil cause of action maybe.

True. Thanks for the reminder...at least and in all actuality in the case of the fraternity members it was libel, but I digress.

You're learning!

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.

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.

+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.

[Gonzo]

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.

Slander isn't a crime, dawg. Civil cause of action maybe.

True. Thanks for the reminder...at least and in all actuality in the case of the fraternity members it was libel, but I digress.

You're learning!

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.

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.

Bar essay score: 9/10

[MtnMan09]

Slander isn't a crime, dawg. Civil cause of action maybe.

True. Thanks for the reminder...at least and in all actuality in the case of the fraternity members it was libel, but I digress.

You're learning!

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.

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.

Bar essay score: 9/10

Yeah Yeah Yeah. Slacked on the analysis but I was playing dangerously in TL:DR territory.

[Boone Goon]

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.

[MtnMan09]

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.

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]

Purple = sarcasm...it's been used elsewhere with minimal traction...would be extremely helpful on here to avoid the hurt feelings.