Feeling like a dirtbag

i'm a lawyer and i'm not quite seeing how this adds up to libel. as a cop, he's a public figure. where's the actual malice? it may be unethical on the part of the magazine and the cop might have his lawyer raise holy hell, but i don't see how this will result in a judgment against you or the magazine.

and i agree that you're well protected by having run it by the chief for official comment. you need to write in there that officer xx had no comment, according to chief wiggins.

 

Killick, How much is Deadspin paying these days .

 

A small-town cop is a public figure in a libel case? Seriously? That seems to be setting the bar far lower than I've seen it set in the past.

It's certainly quite possible that the cop would lose a libel case. Then again, I would be less than comfortable if I had to defend the story in court and admit that the reporter never talked to the cop, never physically set foot in the station to seek out the cop for comment, had grave reservations about the veracity of the story, strongly advised his editor not to publish it, admitted publicly that he felt like "a slimeball, dirtbag, sneaky sonuvabitch" for writing the story... but there it is in print. I think that would play very poorly in front of a jury.

 

I don't know if this has been asked yet...

Killick, after doing the research, do you think the subject of this story deserves to featured in this way? Is he a bad cop?

If the answer is "no," I sure as shit would not type that here, but I think (if I understand the law correctly) then this cop, public figure or not, has a case if you think what will be printed is untrue. Am I right on that?

I think a cop ducking you, though, should not be a way to kill a story.

 

there are more ethical problems with this situation than libel, but yes, a small-town cop could easily be considered a public figure. as for a lawsuit, the damage to a publication doesn't usually come from losing a libel case, it loses with the cost to defend itself.

 

yeah, your situation isn't ideal, but having dealt with cops now for what seems like decades, the cop knows you called and he doesn't want to talk about it with you.

he's probably been advised that if he doesn't make contact with you, a writer or publication will hold off publishing the piece, by then, the cop has turned detective, figured out who you have talked with and has polished responses ready to go for any of the points you've raised by the time he chats with you.

I wouldn't feel like a scumbag, my best guess is that he is ducking you.

 

I'm amazed that you wrote this without even physically going down to the cop shop.
If it's in your town, there's absolutely no excuse to speak to people over the phone when it's not a major deal to see them in person.
Number one, you get better quotes and more interaction, and you can see the looks on people's faces when you talk to them, whether they're hesitating, or want to say something but stop themselves, whatever it is.
Had you done that with the cops, in particular, there's a pretty good chance you would have been able to make contact with the cop long before you found yourself in this after-the-fact predicament. It's a little late now, isn't it?
People respond to someone face-to-face far more willingly than they do a complete stranger over the phone who wants something. Pretty basic journalism.
Don't want to get on ya, but that's just lazy, IMHO.

 

He's a public official, which is treated more or less the same.

 

that's what i think, too. i guess i should add the obvious, that precedent differs by state and without knowing in which state killick lives (and without doing the actual research) i can't say for sure whether courts there have held cops to be considered public figures.

even if he's not a public figure, killick never said that the article contained lies and mistruths. truth is an absolute defense. and even if the quotes are lies, i doubt that killick would be found liable for libel based on what he has told us about his efforts to get the cop's comments.