No Charges

Logic your kidding right?

There is ample evidence that the Forest Park has a police department that lacks discipline and professionalism.

How much has the village paid in legal settlements?

How many insurance carriers have dumped Forest Park b/c of settlements and issues stemming from the police department?

What do other communities pay in insurance and settlements? How much of their problems stem from their police departments?

Kozak thinking he could get away with some rough stuff is just a symptom of the lack of professionalism at the Forest Park PD.

Is there anybody defending the Forest Park PD who isn't a complete sycophant for the Calderone administration?

Mr Nyberg,  know you like to ask questions, so do I, but would greatly appreciate some real numbers/$$ to go along with your queries. If you know the facts/figures, for crissakes, spit 'em out.

logic wrote: Mr Nyberg,  know you like to ask questions, so do I, but would greatly appreciate some real numbers/$$ to go along with your queries. If you know the facts/figures, for crissakes, spit 'em out.

Hey no use  of swear words...Where's Adminimom with the bar of soap?

you're mixing up your heavenly bodies/goddesses - isis, i believe, had this issue.

Let em have it Harry !!! Wipe the floors with those mugs !!! I think I watched to many old movies last night.

Who cares if he named the cheating creep cop Kozak. Creep Kozak was accused of rape. He has no right to privacy. The disgraced Ryan was protecting him. Plain and simple. You think that if this was some 27 year old colored guy from Maywood that Ryan and Calderone wouldn't be crowing like a roosters? Not to mention I bet the 27 year old colored guy from Maywood would be in jail right now charged with rape. The whole not naming names thing is a newspaper company policy. Not a law. The cheating creep cop Kozak cheated on his wife and had sex and used his hand-cuffs to restrain her and was accused by the woman he did this to of rape. And that is O.K. with you? If it's the truth it isn't libel now is it? You can't sue someone for telling the truth about you. The cheating creep cop Kozak had sex with a woman that was not his wife and she filed a police report accusing him of rape. Being the 1st person to say that is not a crime if in fact cheating creep cop Kozak was accused. I don't think anyone is denying that he was accused. How is Carl guilty of libel?   I can't believe that people are defending this cheating creep cop Kozak and instead of holding him responsible you want to blame Carl? People have the right to know and decide whether they want cheating creep cop Kozak around them or their daughters and wifes now. The cheating creep cop Kozak is morally bankrupt by his own actions not by what Carl does. What is wrong with you?

jujube50 wrote:    If it's the truth it isn't libel now is it? You can't sue someone for telling the truth about you.   Bingo!

Of course, that wasn't true until a wise jury in New York in 1732 ignored the law and acquitted a newspaper editor of libel on the grounds that the story was true.  Ponder how we owe the foundations of one our most basic First Amendment rights to jury nullification.

videoguy wrote: KPO'M wrote: Ponder how we owe the foundations of one our most basic First Amendment rights to jury nullification. Huh?

The judge in that 1732 case (I forget the citation) basically instructed the jury that under the law as written, the newspaper editor was guilty, since truth wasn't a valid defense against a libel claim.  The jury ignored the judge's instructions.  Pretty soon after that, juries basically refused to convict on that ground, and the law was changed.  It was a major boost to the concept of freedom of the press.

If the jury had not done that and the precedent set, we would have lost our freedom of speech.  Everyone here could have been sued over things that were said about the candidates during the election because whether they were true or not they were negative.

Does anybody know the number of rape allegations the State's Attorney has declined to prosecute when the alleged rapist was not a cop or otherwise politically connected in the criminal justice system?

Does anyone here, that has named a person, know he did in fact do what he is accused of?

There are only two people that know the answer to this, and Sentry and Nyberg are not the two.

Perhaps slander (From Webster on line... An action for slander may be brought without alleging and proving special damages if the statements in question have a plainly harmful character, as by imputing to the plaintiff criminal guilt, serious sexual misconduct, or conduct or a characteristic affecting his or her business or profession.) (Not sure think Sentry and Carl have made plenty of harmful statements to this person’s character) was the wrong choice of words, how about defamation of character or character assassination?

Why does one party get special treatment and the other get the gauntlet?

BBones wrote:    Perhaps slander (From Webster on line... An action for slander may be brought without alleging and proving special damages if the statements in question have a plainly harmful character, as by imputing to the plaintiff criminal guilt, serious sexual misconduct, or conduct or a characteristic affecting his or her business or profession.) (Not sure think Sentry and Carl have made plenty of harmful statements to this person’s character) was the wrong choice of words, how about defamation of character or character assassination? Why does one party get special treatment and the other get the gauntlet?

Read your own definition. Serious sexual mis-conduct (cheating creep cop Kozak had sex with a woman and hand-cuffed her and she filed a charge of rape against him. Sounds like he participated in a serious sexual mis-conduct to me)
Conduct affecting his or her business or profession. (cheating creep cop Kozak is a cop and was accused of one of the most heinous crimes a human being can commit. Seems to me HIS actions will affect his profession and ability to carry it out.)
No one made him do anything. He did what he did now he lives with the consequences of his actions. Seems simple to me. He could have just went home to his wife that night. He chose to follow a different path.

KPO'M wrote: BBones wrote: Why does one party get special treatment and the other get the gauntlet?     That's what a lot of people were asking about the Harder and Johnsen cases relative to the case of the subject of the most recent allegations.