It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.


Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.


Breaking: Police race to active shooter at Reynolds High School

page: 9
<< 6  7  8   >>

log in


posted on Jun, 13 2014 @ 08:32 AM
a reply to: AugustusMasonicus
Oh? I'm either too old or I don't remember that rotating thing. Looking at the Youtube video again, take notice of the reporters reaction when the kid in the green shirt says, "one of them was in there with us..." her head tilts sideways and her eyes get real beady. Like she's not happy having to hear that! She might be fired from her propaganda job because of that. Or worse she might disappear!

posted on Jun, 13 2014 @ 08:34 AM

originally posted by: Mikeultra
I'm either too old or I don't remember that rotating thing.

It is not a universal feature but my High School had it since the 1960's-not that I am that old.

posted on Jun, 13 2014 @ 09:27 AM

originally posted by: WhiteAlice

originally posted by: starviego

originally posted by: WhiteAlice
You do know that insinuating that someone has done something or intended to do something illegal in writing, even on a forum, is still libel and defamation, right?

Isn't that what the District Attorney does everyday? Anyway, it's not nearly as illegal as participating in a conspiracy to commit murder.

Which District Attorney? Last I checked, there were a whole lot of those. Powell was charged and pleaded guilty to unlawful possession of a fire arm and the people who talked with him and checked out his story were obviously satisfied. They were the ones that actually did investigatory work to make their determination. You, on the other hand, are letting your imagination go wild coupled with promoting your own website and barely skirting accusing somebody who wasn't charged with anything more than the above of conspiring to murder. That IS defamation.

As I sit here in my Music Business class we just covered those topics and well I can assure you they don't apply here. First off defamation requires you to be a public figure or recognizable to the general public. Also wanna straighten out the fact that libel is defamation (in the written form) so you only sue for libel not both.

posted on Jun, 13 2014 @ 09:59 AM

originally posted by: neo96
a reply to: sheepslayer247

As a father with two kids in public school, I'm beginning to think it may not be a good idea to send my kids to school. - See more at:

Send them to private or home school them.

It was a bad idea to send kids to public schools long before there were 'mass shootings'.

Cavalier as usual, I see. Who's going to pay for private schools for poor children or homeschool kids with parents that work 2 to 3 freakin' jobs? Your posts carry this constant beat, loud with hate, inhumanity, and lack of empathy for the less fortunate. Seriously, how can you live with yourself? How can you not find your daily poison repugnant?
edit on 13-6-2014 by Snoopy1978 because: (no reason given)

posted on Jun, 13 2014 @ 11:21 AM
a reply to: RickyD

Actually, you've got that backwards. I had to take Business Law and memorize 150 Supreme Court cases for Poii Sci. The last bit was hell but it's amazing how many times I've had to reference it to clarify bits of law as that is where the clarifications are on our amendments and legislation. Please confirm it and I sure hope you haven't taken a test on the subject of defamation and public figures yet.

Public figures, under the eyes of the law, have little to no protections from libel or slander because they are a public figure. The ordinary person walking down the street has more protections from libel and slander than a celebrity does. I think you must have misheard your professor. The specific Supreme Court case that set the public figure precedent in the US was NY Times v. Sullivan. Basically, in the case of a public figure, they have the additional burden of proving that malicious intent was behind the words. The reason why public figures have this additional layer of difficulty in pressing defamation suits is because they are frequently politicians and may try to squelch negative press. Unless they can prove malice, a political official cannot sue for defamation.

In terms of celebrities as public figures, they have a little more protection than a public figure who is a political official, Curtis Publishing v. Butts allowed for public figures who are not political officials to sue if the information gathered was reckless and without check.

A private individual, like Powell, only has to prove that the utterer was negligent to bring forward a defamation suit. A public figure has to prove actual malice--that the utterer knew the statement was false or that the information was gathered recklessly and unchecked (unverified). In terms of online exchanges, the only other additional requirement that a private individual must meet is that they must demand a retraction for the statement before bringing suit. No demand for retraction = no suit (Mathis v. Cannon).

Trust me, you've got it backwards. Powell has more protections against defamation than Miley Cyrus and Miley Cyrus has more protections against defamation than Barack Obama. That's how it works. Protection from libel and slander are for private individuals but not public figures. Public figures require additional burden of proof (malice, reckless and unchecked gathering) that a private individual does not need at all. Private individuals, on the internet, must only prove negligence and demand a retraction before pressing suit.

posted on Jun, 21 2014 @ 01:05 PM
The murder weapon allegedly belonged to the brother of the shooter, Lucas Padgett, 24, who was sharing a room with his 15 year old brother Jared. Lucas was also in the Army Reserves, after having done a tour in Afghanistan. Interestingly, no details have been released confirming that Lucas legally owned this weapon. And there is a possibility that the US Army provided the murder weapon.
Army officials declined to speak directly about the case, except to stress that the Army has a strict policy on keeping weapons under lock and key and to indicate the type of gun used, an AR-15, was not likely a military-issued weapon.
“Any kind of weapon that is signed out or that is assigned to a soldier, that soldier is, under policy, not allowed to take that weapon home,” Army Reserve spokesman Captain Eric Connor said, adding the chances of a soldier taking a weapon without permission were slim.

Not likely? You would think that now, almost two weeks after the shooting, the investigators would know exactly where Lucas Padgett obtained that weapon. It either was, or was not, legally purchased. I wonder, too, if Lucas wasn't somehow connected to the ROTC unit at Reynold High, of which Jared was an enthusiastic member.

edit on 21-6-2014 by starviego because: (no reason given)

new topics

top topics
<< 6  7  8   >>

log in