LugerForum Discussion Forums - View Single Post

Edward Tinker · 03-24-2004, 07:44 AM

Albert I am confused?

You state <blockquote>quote:<hr />Bearing this comment in mind, I see no harm in discussing the initial details of a very important pistol which was stolen even if we know the involved parties. <hr /></blockquote>I left this thread, as did Ron, because of this very reason. <blockquote>quote:<hr />In my opinion, to block/delete a thread which has no 'finger-pointing' involved, only shows protectionist, defensive or preferential treatment for a person. <hr /></blockquote>Krause was "fingered" as having possibly sold a stolen gun. In the article it did not state him by name. So DIRECT finger pointing was made. This conjecture was raised by Pete who stated that Krause showed this gun around several gun shows, a truthful statement. Wes stated and made a side comment about how it had to be obvious that he should have known better. And to me it appeared that Wes was meaning that Mike knew it was a stolen gun and still continued with the deal.

<blockquote>quote:<hr />I believe that we have learned from past experiences a code of conduct on this forum and, therefore, threads should not be quickly closed/deleted because a moderator senses that the issue might get out of hand. <hr /></blockquote>I don't believe this and on other gun forums flames and name callings quickly get out of hand. The initial discussion was a valid one, although it was treading on thin ice. If you, Wes and others think otherwise, fine. Then that is okay, but in my opinion I felt it was not what this forum was about. <blockquote>quote:<hr />If a member happens to stain another person's name or reputation or use false references, then the appropriate action should be taken.<hr /></blockquote>Albert if you had one of your guns on your website discussed and it was claimed that you had received stolen property, what would you think? Would you believe it was okay to let that be left here on the forum? What would the appropriate action be? Lock the thread? That means that the entire thread stays where it is, to be seen again and again, leaving doubt in every new reader that sees it.

If the initial article had stated that Krause was convicted of receiving stolen property, then that would be different. It did not state that:

The link is included here:
http://www.ice.gov/graphics/news/new...ger_020604.pdf

<blockquote>quote:<hr />During the ceremony, Garcia also returned to Switzerland a rare, 106-year-old, Luger pistol that had been stolen from a Swiss museum in 1996 and was recently recovered by ICE agents in the United States.

and

The U.S. Attorney contacted Vincent G. Klink, the ICE Resident Agent in Charge in Austin, TX, who opened an investigation into the stolen pistol. After four months of extensive investigation by ICE agents, the pistol was recovered from an internationally known antique firearm collector during the execution of search warrants last July. <hr /></blockquote>In no way does this state Mike Krause by name. Although this "news" might be known to collectors, it is libelous to put his name to stolen property until convicted by a court of US law.

Definition of libel:
http://www.hvgateway.com/jrnl015a.htm
<blockquote>quote:<hr />N.Y.A.D. 1979. Generally words are libelous which directly tend to injure or prejudice the reputation of an individual in any profession carried on by him, and are actionable without proof of special damage. Terry v. Orleans County, 422 N.Y.S.2d 826, 72 A.D.2d 925

and

http://www.legal-definitions.com/I,%20J,%20K/libel.htm

libel definition â?? libel means to defame or harm oneâ??s reputation is writing.

and

Read this small section

...it clarified that the repeating or republishing of someone else's libel or slander can, and most likely will make you a part of the underlying action.

and

http://www.hfac.uh.edu/comm/media_libel/libel/

Published material meeting three conditions: the material is defamatory either on its face or indirectly; the defamatory statement is about someone who is identifiable to one or more persons; and the material must be distributed to someone other than the offended party; i.e. published; distinguished from slander. (For more details, see http://192.41.4.29/def/l032 ).
<hr /></blockquote>If anyone can tell me that it was in the best interests of this forum to keep this thread, then fine, but UNTIL Mike Krause is convicted, it is conjecture and hearsay to bring up ANYONEâ??S name in discussing this incident from the initial article. I do not care if MANY collectors knew of this incident, it is NOT legally appropriate to this board until proven by a court of law and someone is convicted of a crime.

This has nothing to do with Free Speech, this has to do with legality. Wes, you are always stating that we must be careful of how we portray ourselves, well, UNTIL Krause is convicted, this is not the truth, but mere conjecture.

And if anyone wants the position of moderator and look out for the entire broad picture, then ask John Dunkle and he will be glad to think about it.

Ed

03-24-2004, 07:44 AM	#11
Edward Tinker Super Moderator Eternal Lifer LugerForum Patron Join Date: Jun 2002 Location: North of Spokane, WA Posts: 15,974 Thanks: 2,072 Thanked 4,609 Times in 2,123 Posts	Albert I am confused? You state </font><blockquote><font size="1" face="Verdana,Tahoma,Arial,Helvetica,Geneva">quote:</font><hr /><font size="2" face="Verdana,Tahoma,Arial,Helvetica,Geneva">Bearing this comment in mind, I see no harm in discussing the initial details of a very important pistol which was stolen even if we know the involved parties. </font><hr /></blockquote><font size="2" face="Verdana,Tahoma,Arial,Helvetica,Geneva">I left this thread, as did Ron, because of this very reason. </font><blockquote><font size="1" face="Verdana,Tahoma,Arial,Helvetica,Geneva">quote:</font><hr /><font size="2" face="Verdana,Tahoma,Arial,Helvetica,Geneva">In my opinion, to block/delete a thread which has no 'finger-pointing' involved, only shows protectionist, defensive or preferential treatment for a person. </font><hr /></blockquote><font size="2" face="Verdana,Tahoma,Arial,Helvetica,Geneva">Krause was "fingered" as having possibly sold a stolen gun. In the article it did not state him by name. So DIRECT finger pointing was made. This conjecture was raised by Pete who stated that Krause showed this gun around several gun shows, a truthful statement. Wes stated and made a side comment about how it had to be obvious that he should have known better. And to me it appeared that Wes was meaning that Mike knew it was a stolen gun and still continued with the deal. </font><blockquote><font size="1" face="Verdana,Tahoma,Arial,Helvetica,Geneva">quote:</font><hr /><font size="2" face="Verdana,Tahoma,Arial,Helvetica,Geneva">I believe that we have learned from past experiences a code of conduct on this forum and, therefore, threads should not be quickly closed/deleted because a moderator senses that the issue might get out of hand. </font><hr /></blockquote><font size="2" face="Verdana,Tahoma,Arial,Helvetica,Geneva">I don't believe this and on other gun forums flames and name callings quickly get out of hand. The initial discussion was a valid one, although it was treading on thin ice. If you, Wes and others think otherwise, fine. Then that is okay, but in my opinion I felt it was not what this forum was about. </font><blockquote><font size="1" face="Verdana,Tahoma,Arial,Helvetica,Geneva">quote:</font><hr /><font size="2" face="Verdana,Tahoma,Arial,Helvetica,Geneva">If a member happens to stain another person's name or reputation or use false references, then the appropriate action should be taken.</font><hr /></blockquote><font size="2" face="Verdana,Tahoma,Arial,Helvetica,Geneva">Albert if you had one of your guns on your website discussed and it was claimed that you had received stolen property, what would you think? Would you believe it was okay to let that be left here on the forum? What would the appropriate action be? Lock the thread? That means that the entire thread stays where it is, to be seen again and again, leaving doubt in every new reader that sees it. If the initial article had stated that Krause was convicted of receiving stolen property, then that would be different. It did not state that: The link is included here: http://www.ice.gov/graphics/news/new...ger_020604.pdf </font><blockquote><font size="1" face="Verdana,Tahoma,Arial,Helvetica,Geneva">quote:</font><hr /><font size="2" face="Verdana,Tahoma,Arial,Helvetica,Geneva">During the ceremony, Garcia also returned to Switzerland a rare, 106-year-old, Luger pistol that had been stolen from a Swiss museum in 1996 and was recently recovered by ICE agents in the United States. and The U.S. Attorney contacted Vincent G. Klink, the ICE Resident Agent in Charge in Austin, TX, who opened an investigation into the stolen pistol. After four months of extensive investigation by ICE agents, the pistol was recovered from an internationally known antique firearm collector during the execution of search warrants last July. </font><hr /></blockquote><font size="2" face="Verdana,Tahoma,Arial,Helvetica,Geneva">In no way does this state Mike Krause by name. Although this "news" might be known to collectors, it is libelous to put his name to stolen property until convicted by a court of US law. Definition of libel: http://www.hvgateway.com/jrnl015a.htm </font><blockquote><font size="1" face="Verdana,Tahoma,Arial,Helvetica,Geneva">quote:</font><hr /><font size="2" face="Verdana,Tahoma,Arial,Helvetica,Geneva">N.Y.A.D. 1979. Generally words are libelous which directly tend to injure or prejudice the reputation of an individual in any profession carried on by him, and are actionable without proof of special damage. Terry v. Orleans County, 422 N.Y.S.2d 826, 72 A.D.2d 925 and http://www.legal-definitions.com/I,%20J,%20K/libel.htm libel definition â?? libel means to defame or harm oneâ??s reputation is writing. and Read this small section ...it clarified that the repeating or republishing of someone else's libel or slander can, and most likely will make you a part of the underlying action. and http://www.hfac.uh.edu/comm/media_libel/libel/ Published material meeting three conditions: the material is defamatory either on its face or indirectly; the defamatory statement is about someone who is identifiable to one or more persons; and the material must be distributed to someone other than the offended party; i.e. published; distinguished from slander. (For more details, see http://192.41.4.29/def/l032 ). </font><hr /></blockquote><font size="2" face="Verdana,Tahoma,Arial,Helvetica,Geneva">If anyone can tell me that it was in the best interests of this forum to keep this thread, then fine, but UNTIL Mike Krause is convicted, it is conjecture and hearsay to bring up ANYONEâ??S name in discussing this incident from the initial article. I do not care if MANY collectors knew of this incident, it is NOT legally appropriate to this board until proven by a court of law and someone is convicted of a crime. This has nothing to do with Free Speech, this has to do with legality. Wes, you are always stating that we must be careful of how we portray ourselves, well, UNTIL Krause is convicted, this is not the truth, but mere conjecture. And if anyone wants the position of moderator and look out for the entire broad picture, then ask John Dunkle and he will be glad to think about it. Ed __________________ Edward Tinker ************ Co-Author of Police Lugers - Co-Author of Simson Lugers Author of Veteran Bring Backs Vol I, Vol II, Vol III and Vol IV