Persecution? More to come?

[Praxeas]

Originally Posted by HaShaliach

The question is, "Are the charges true?" If true, then no defamation, if the charges are false, then she should be awarded damages.

Of course, this one of the problems in associating one's self in a spiritual assembly - the spirit can and will reveal many things to many people. We can't hide from God, ask old king David!

If the pastor is, in truth, being persecuted, so? Hey, Jesus 'promised' that all of His disciples could expect no less from this world, just like the prophets of old. Let's get use to it.

Can a DA be sued after a defendant is found innocent? How about any cop that speaks in public on TV about a suspect they arrest for a crime and is later found innocent?

[geekette]

Originally Posted by Praxeas

Can a DA be sued after a defendant is found innocent? How about any cop that speaks in public on TV about a suspect they arrest for a crime and is later found innocent?

In general, no, because it's made in the context of their employment and the government generally has an exemption from libel/slander cases. (And in the case of cops, the police department usually has a communications officer and the beat cop isn't going to say anything to the press.) I know there have been suits, but I'm hard-pressed to think there's been a successful one.

However, in this case, the church is not the government and doesn't have the same exemption.

[missourimary]

Originally Posted by Praxeas

Can a DA be sued after a defendant is found innocent? How about any cop that speaks in public on TV about a suspect they arrest for a crime and is later found innocent?

A DA is responsible for representing someone in a case, not for deliberately making false or unprovable statements. If he makes such statements, yes, he is liable for them. Also, the final decision of guilt or innocence is not determined by the prosecution. In churches, too often statements made by clergy are taken as absolute fact and thereby attach guilt without a fair trial (one of our rights as American citizens).

Police must also be careful to only name those as suspects who they have justifiable and provable reason to believe SHOULD be suspected.

Originally Posted by Timmy

"The appeals court last year upheld Dadd's negligence claim, worth $40,000, but reversed more than $273,000 in damages for libel, slander and false light. It said Williams' statements might have been subject to qualified privilege, which allows someone with authority to make certain statements to members of an organization without being held liable."

Was that a good ruling? Should an anointed man of God have the freedom to say what God wants him to say, without fear of repercussions?

A pastor has a right to say certain things to a congregation, but only within the bounds of both Biblical and national laws. A pastor cannot be allowed to say and/or do anything he wants under the guise of religion, anymore than anyone else can. Was it Jim Jones religious right to hand out cups of cyanide-laced koolaid? Is it an LDS's right to marry multiple wives? Is it a Pagan's right to smoke marijuana as part of a religious ceremony?

Originally Posted by Timmy

"In a ruling released Thursday, the Michigan Supreme Court re-instated the full jury award to Dadd. The high court's decision was by a 5-2 margin."

Is this man of God being persecuted? Will there be more such persecution? See also http://apostolicfriendsforum.com/showthread.php?t=30783.

No one is persecuted by having a dispute like this settled in a court of law in a fair trial. If she'd destroyed his building, vandalized his property, or threatened him or his family, that would have been persecution.