UPC Pastor Convicted of Slander in Pulpit!

[RandyWayne]

Originally Posted by Praxeas

No...full nudity leaves zilch to the imagination.

"I don't know, I can imagine quite a bit." -Han Solo

[canam]

The first thing i thought of when i read this, was this will be turned over on appeal( before a judge not a jury) to remove all the emotionalism that can involve juries ,but now i can see an attorney using a lot of these postings as proof positive she has been permanently harmed.And he would be right.Slam dunk for the plaintiff.No im not an attorney, just mho.Less than 24 hours, 6000 views worldwide and rising fast on just this forum,i have been told its on others.We would all do well to remember how a someone was excoriated unmercifully on this forum,some months ago, for a decsion they made (dont ask their name im not going there)who then took their own life.

[tv1a]

That left a bad taste in my mouth also.

Originally Posted by canam

The first thing i thought of when i read this, was this will be turned over on appeal( before a judge not a jury) to remove all the emotionalism that can involve juries ,but now i can see an attorney using a lot of these postings as proof positive she has been permanently harmed.And he would be right.Slam dunk for the plaintiff.No im not an attorney, just mho.Less than 24 hours, 6000 views worldwide and rising fast on just this forum,i have been told its on others.We would all do well to remember how a someone was excoriated unmercifully on this forum,some months ago, for a decsion they made (dont ask their name im not going there)who then took their own life.

[drummerboy_dave]

Originally Posted by tv1a

That left a bad taste in my mouth also.

Perhaps the bad taste comes from the insinuation that inernet chatter causes suicides.

[tv1a]

Chatter wasn't limited to the internet.

Originally Posted by drummerboy_dave

Perhaps the bad taste comes from the insinuation that inernet chatter causes suicides.

[drummerboy_dave]

Originally Posted by canam

The first thing i thought of when i read this, was this will be turned over on appeal( before a judge not a jury) to remove all the emotionalism that can involve juries ,but now i can see an attorney using a lot of these postings as proof positive she has been permanently harmed.And he would be right.Slam dunk for the plaintiff.No im not an attorney, just mho.Less than 24 hours, 6000 views worldwide and rising fast on just this forum,i have been told its on others.We would all do well to remember how a someone was excoriated unmercifully on this forum,some months ago, for a decsion they made (dont ask their name im not going there)who then took their own life.

Do some folks make false speculations, over analyze, and take things to far? Yes. Do some go on and on and on about non-issues when they haven't even read into the details? Sadly, they must. I can't understand people who would entertain themselves on the misfortune of others and I express my displeasure. But, most people here are apostolic and are or know folks in the UPC. This case involves a UPC pastor. There's no reason why we shouldn't discuss it. But we should make every effort to discuss it responsibly and with dignity.

[canam]

Originally Posted by drummerboy_dave

Do some folks make false speculations, over analyze, and take things to far? Yes. Do some go on and on and on about non-issues when they haven't even read into the details? Sadly, they must. I can't understand people who would entertain themselves on the misfortune of others and I express my displeasure. But, most people here are apostolic and are or know folks in the UPC. This case involves a UPC pastor. There's no reason why we shouldn't discuss it. But we should make every effort to discuss it responsibly and with dignity.

[Cindy]

Originally Posted by canam

The first thing i thought of when i read this, was this will be turned over on appeal( before a judge not a jury) to remove all the emotionalism that can involve juries ,but now i can see an attorney using a lot of these postings as proof positive she has been permanently harmed.And he would be right.Slam dunk for the plaintiff.No im not an attorney, just mho.Less than 24 hours, 6000 views worldwide and rising fast on just this forum,i have been told its on others.We would all do well to remember how a someone was excoriated unmercifully on this forum,some months ago, for a decsion they made (dont ask their name im not going there)who then took their own life.

I didn't know anything like that had happened. Very sad.

[jfrog]

Originally Posted by Cindy

I didn't know anything like that had happened. Very sad.

I did not either.

[Baron1710]

Originally Posted by canam

The first thing i thought of when i read this, was this will be turned over on appeal( before a judge not a jury) to remove all the emotionalism that can involve juries ,but now i can see an attorney using a lot of these postings as proof positive she has been permanently harmed.And he would be right.Slam dunk for the plaintiff.No im not an attorney, just mho.Less than 24 hours, 6000 views worldwide and rising fast on just this forum,i have been told its on others.We would all do well to remember how a someone was excoriated unmercifully on this forum,some months ago, for a decsion they made (dont ask their name im not going there)who then took their own life.

Just so your aware, in a jury trial juries determine what facts are true. In appeals, unless it is a de novo review, the facts are what the jury says they are and the only thing a judge can review on the appeal is the law. The facts, even if they are wrong, are what the jury determined in the first trial these are the facts that the judge(s) on appeal apply to the law. The law in the first trial was determined by the judge not the jury.