More harassment from an anti

[pkbites]

The antis keep pushing more and more rules, regulations, licensing, etc.. But they don't give a rip about gun safety, fighting crime, etc..

They want a completely disarmed populace. (except for them, of course! ).

When guys like this follow the law to the letter, an anti still harasses him.

This is another reason why we can never compromise even one inch with these people. Even when they get their way, even when we follow all of their rules, they are still not happy.

And they will never stop. EVER! Until we are defenseless!

 

[davidmcbeth]

"This man carries a loaded gun around your children every day."

Sue the girl for defamation ... make her cough up some cash (even if she wins the case she'll still pay 40K to her lawyer).

Gotta be able to act pro se.

 

[WalkingWolf]

She might as well post a sign for herself~"Potential Unarmed Victim".

Actually he should have those magnetic signs made for his vehicle with her picture saying "Unarmed Victim". See how fast she takes down her sign.

 

[skidmark]

What defamation?

There might be a juicy civil suit if he is injured and can demonstrate proximate causation to her signs - but that's going to be a long hard row to hoe.

I'd rather see him put up signs informing parents that she brings a multi-ton engine of death to the school every day without verifying that all the safety features are in proper operating order.

Bullets usually only hit one person, but cars tend to mow down hordes of kids. All because somebody screwed up one of the basic safety rules.

stay safe.

 

[davidmcbeth]

What defamation?

There might be a juicy civil suit if he is injured and can demonstrate proximate causation to her signs - but that's going to be a long hard row to hoe.

I'd rather see him put up signs informing parents that she brings a multi-ton engine of death to the school every day without verifying that all the safety features are in proper operating order.

Bullets usually only hit one person, but cars tend to mow down hordes of kids. All because somebody screwed up one of the basic safety rules.

stay safe.

She just put up a sign indicating that the guy is a danger to children ... how is this not defamation per se?

 

[JoeSparky]

Sounds like a great opportunity for a mass gathering of legal OC'er IN FRONT OF THE WOMAN'S home on the sidewalk, not on her grass!

 

[robdoar]

What defamation?

There might be a juicy civil suit if he is injured and can demonstrate proximate causation to her signs - but that's going to be a long hard row to hoe.

Exactly.

The strength of a defamation case can be assessed by asking one question:
"Is it true?"
if the answer is yes then you have virtually no chance of winning a case. (Not to mention you still have to prove damages, and if you fail YOU have to pay their legal fees)

The sign posts an accurate statement, and is on private property.
Does it suck? Sure, but freedom of speech can be a bitch sometimes.

 

[The Truth]

Just another reason to OC. Add it to the list!

Also, if he has the right to conceal in WI but she is revealing the fact that he is concealing, isn't she infringing on his right to conceal? I'm not so sure this is a freedom of speech issue, as she is seemingly conspiring to remove his right.

If he sues, wins, and she continues, criminal conspiracy charge, anyone? Is there any precedence here for trying to take away someone's rights? I'm really going out on a limb here.

939.31 - ANNOT.
Under a unilateral conspiracy, a person who intends to accomplish the objects of the conspiracy is guilty even though the other members of the conspiracy never intended that a crime be committed. This same logic applies to the next step: that is, when the fulfillment of the conspiracy is not only highly unlikely, but is legally impossible. State v. Huff, 2009 WI App 92, 319 Wis. 2d 258, 769 N.W.2d 154, 08-2664.

conspiracy = take away rights explicitly enumerated by law
other members of the conspiracy = others trying to do the same

 

[davidmcbeth]

Exactly.

The strength of a defamation case can be assessed by asking one question:
"Is it true?"
if the answer is yes then you have virtually no chance of winning a case. (Not to mention you still have to prove damages, and if you fail YOU have to pay their legal fees)

The sign posts an accurate statement, and is on private property.
Does it suck? Sure, but freedom of speech can be a bitch sometimes.

The truth of a statement is not always a perfect defense.

Ex: We hired Bill on Tuesday and on Wednesday we had some internal theft occur and on Thursday we fired Bill.

That's defamation. It implies Bill stole from the company. Even if everything stated above is true, its still defamation.

I see a strong case or at least one that will cause a settlement offer.

I would file today myself.

Relief from a frivolous suit is a counter-suit. Rarely does a court agree..and in this case, its not a frivolous suit.

And injury is not needed to be proven in this type of case ... its defamation per se ... the law will assume that an injury occurred. So heinous is the statement made.

This is the way to handle these wacko antis .. make them pay so that they'll say "I never should have listened to Ms. Anti - she cost me forty thousand dollars and Ms. Anti did not help me at all. Ms. Anti ruined my life. Ms. Anti is evil."

 

[skidmark]

The I'm-a-lawyer-who-doesn't-know-anything-about-law strikes again.

Implying a thing with the intent to create an inference about that thing has a long social and judicial history. The law says you have to come out and say it. Duels were used to settle the accuracy of an implication because the courts would not touch the matter.

stay safe.

 

[Superlite27]

Here's a sign Mr. Halleck could put up in his yard:

 

[WalkingWolf]

Here's a sign Mr. Halleck could put up in his yard:

He may not live near the school, but he could have a magnetic one made for his vehicle. Like this.

 

[davidmcbeth]

My PC screen cracked ! Thanks WW ... so ugly is she

 

[marshaul]

Why doesn't the guy just OC? Her yard signs would be kind of a joke if he wasn't a CCer.

"Captain Obvious over here likes to put up silly signs."

 

[johnfenter]

Equipment?!

Here's a sign Mr. Halleck could put up in his yard:

That's just her behind; it doubles when she gets into the car....

 

[b0neZ]

Here's a sign Mr. Halleck could put up in his yard:

That's just her behind; it doubles when she gets into the car....

So if placed appropriately, it would give a whole new meaning to "Junk In The Trunk"?

 

[b0neZ]

So rather than address the facts, some of us would seem willing to make base and insulting remarks about the woman, beyond mere frivolity.

We've always considered taking the high road a better choice.

Agreed, and I do admit that I sunk to a juvenile sense of humor on that, just to see if I could generate any kind of reaction by sinking to the same tactics the woman did.

It didn't feel good to do so, to be honest, and I do consider my experiment an utter failure.

 

[davidmcbeth]

Agreed, and I do admit that I sunk to a juvenile sense of humor on that, just to see if I could generate any kind of reaction by sinking to the same tactics the woman did.

It didn't feel good to do so, to be honest, and I do consider my experiment an utter failure.

Don't feel bad ... one can be insulting and still be correct ! :dude:

I insult politicians all the time .. those who I know will not be swayed by logic ... I think that's why they exist.

 

[Grapeshot]

Don't feel bad ... one can be insulting and still be correct ! :dude:
-snipped--

On OCDO being insulting is a violation. Insults are unnecessary, reflect back on the giver, and taint the forum.

My grandfather said, When you stoop to conquer........you lose." Grandpa was a wise man.