Maryland, USA Capital Gazette newspaper mass shooting tragedy seems to be revenge act by alleged killer, a computer engg. graduate, for article on his cyberstalking and harassment criminal offence
This tragedy seems to have started with Facebook cyberstalking and Facebook & email harassment by alleged killer, Jarrod Ramos, who is reported to be a computer engineering graduate who had previously worked for the U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics for six years. A lady, who went to the same high school as Ramos, was contacted by Ramos over Facebook some time before 2011. The lady did not recall Ramos but found that they indeed had been together at the school in the past. They had some exchanges over Facebook and emails which later soured. She blocked Ramos on Facebook but he continued to cyberstalk her on Facebook and sent her emails with screenshots of her comments on Facebook pages other than her own.
Eventually the lady complained to the police. The harassment stopped for some time but then restarted. The lady started having problems at work where she was first put on probation and then laid off. She thinks, based on some information conveyed to her by her supervisor then, that Ramos complained about her to her company which resulted in these problems for her but she cannot prove it.
Eventually it led to formal court proceedings where Ramos, on 26th July 2011, entered a guilty plea on a charge of criminal harassment (in a Maryland court). Ramos got a suspended 90-day jail sentence and was put on supervised probation, asked to continue with ongoing therapy and ordered to not have further contact with the harassment victim (the lady) or her family.
On 31st July 2011 (5 days later), a staff writer of The Capital (Gazette), Eric Thomas Hartley, authored an article in The Capital (Gazette) on this matter titled, "Jarrod wants to be your friend." https://casetext.com/case/ramos-v-hartley shows the whole article and this post's content related to the court case is mainly sourced from it (https://casetext.com/case/ramos-v-hartley).
A few days before the one year statue of limitations for defamation (in Maryland) expired, on 23rd July 2012, Ramos filed his initial defamation complaint against this article published in The Capital (Gazette). He seems to have done this on a pro se basis (doing it by himself without using an attorney, see https://www.ca10.uscourts.gov/clerk/filing-your-appeal/pro-se). He followed it up with a later complaint in October 2012 where he added the charge of invasion of privacy.
In November 2012 the appellees (persons complained against by Ramos i.e. Hartley and others at The Capital (Gazette)) filed a "Motion by Defendants to Dismiss with Prejudice the Complaint and a Request for Hearing".
Judge Maureen M. Lamasney conducted the full hearing on March 29, 2013. The final judgement/ruling on the case seems to have been in Sept. 2015 but I am not able to figure out for sure (from https://casetext.com/case/ramos-v-hartley). The judge granted the defendants (Hartley and others) motion to dismiss the case with prejudice as the complainant (Ramos) had not been able to "lay out a prima facie case for defamation or for invasion of privacy, or being placed in the false light". The judge also said, "There is nothing in those complaints that prove that anything that was published about you is, in fact, false. It all came from a public record. It was of the result of a criminal conviction. And it cannot give rise to a defamation suit."
Mr. Ramos says, "If I understand correctly, then the basis is that there's not a showing of falsity?"
The judge/court responds: "Correct."
Mr. Ramos says, "And rather that there is an application of privilege."
The judge/court responds: "Correct, both that the article was simply not defamatory, that it was based on public record, that you haven't alleged that it was false, and that the article appears to be substantially accurate, and it would fall into the privilege which would make any complaint unsustainable, because they reported a criminal case. They reported a matter of public interest."
The last part of the judgement (https://casetext.com/case/ramos-v-hartley) is as follows:
A discussion of defamation law would be an exercise in futility, because the appellant fails to come close to alleging a case of defamation. In his five-page brief, the appellant devotes two and one-half pages to legal argument. He never alleges that any basic fact contained in the article about his guilty plea is actually false. He claims only that "Hartley's column fails the test of fairness because he editorialized on the story's meaning." There is no allegation of any specific harm that he suffered as a result of the article. He simply described the harm as "incalculable, unforeseen, and potentially unknowable." That does not do it.
The appellant is pro se. A lawyer would almost certainly have told him not to proceed with this case. It reveals a fundamental failure to understand what defamation law is and, more particularly, what defamation law is not. The appellant is aggrieved because the newspaper story about his guilty plea assumed that he was guilty and that the guilty plea was, therefore, properly accepted. He is aggrieved because the story was sympathetic toward the harassment victim and was not equally understanding of the harassment perpetrator. The appellant wanted equal coverage of his side of the story. He wanted a chance to put the victim in a bad light, in order to justify and explain why he did what he did. That, however, is not the function of defamation law.
The appellant was charged with a criminal act. The appellant perpetrated a criminal act. The appellant plead guilty to having perpetrated a criminal act. The appellant was punished for his criminal act. He is not entitled to equal sympathy with his victim and may not blithely dismiss her as a "bipolar drunkard." He does not appear to have learned his lesson.
JUDGMENT AFFIRMED; COSTS TO BE PAID BY THE APPELLANT.
--- end judgement extract ---
Ravi: This dismissal of his defamation complaint by the court seems to have enraged Jarrod Ramos. He verbally attacked and taunted the newspaper and its staff on twitter. The final dismissal seems to have been in Sept. 2015. And in June 2018, the pent-up revenge emotions in Jarrod Ramos against the newspaper establishment, Capital Gazette, led him to do his horrific mass shotting act in their office.
From https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Capital_Gazette_shooting :
A mass shooting occurred on June 28, 2018, at the offices of newspaper publisher Capital Gazette Communications in Annapolis. The perpetrator killed five Capital Gazette employees and gravely wounded several in the attack on the newsroom.[3]
...
Suspect
Jarrod Warren Ramos[22][2][3] (born December 21, 1979), age 38, was captured by police and is in custody as a suspect, but he refused to identify himself.[13][23]
..
The suspect was also carrying a backpack with smoke bombs, flashbang devices, and grenades.[13] The police later announced that the attack had been targeted specifically at Capital Gazette Communications.[27][28]
Previous dispute with newspaper
In 2012, Ramos sued The Capital in a defamation case he brought over a 2011 newspaper article reporting on his guilty plea for criminal harassment.[2][29] After multiple appeals from Ramos, the defamation case against the newspaper was dismissed in 2015 by Prince George's County circuit court judge Maureen M. Lamasney, who ruled in favor of the paper because their reporting was based on publicly available records and Ramos had produced no evidence that the article was inaccurate.[29] Lamasney wrote in her court opinion that Ramos' complaint was "a fundamental failure to understand what defamation law is, and, more particularly, what defamation law is not".[29]
Former Capital editor and publisher Thomas Marquardt said Ramos began harassing the staff of the newspaper after the article on him was published in 2011.[2] In 2013, Marquardt contacted the Anne Arundel County Police Department about Ramos' behavior but the department did not pursue the report.[2] Marquardt also consulted the newspaper's attorneys about filing a restraining order against Ramos, and recalled telling them "This is a guy who is going to come in and shoot us."[2] After his lawsuit against the newspaper was dismissed, Ramos opened a Twitter account, which he used to attack the newspaper and taunt its owners and staff.[2][30] A former FBI senior profiler speculated that Ramos was "an injustice collector" which she described as "someone who goes through life...collect[ing] injustices, real or imagined".[31]
Charges relating to the attack
Ramos has been charged with five counts of first-degree murder, and ordered to be held without bail after he was determined to be a flight risk and a danger to the community. He has also been placed on suicide watch while in custody of law enforcement.[32]
[References from wiki page for above wiki extracts are given at the bottom of this post]
--- end wiki extracts ---
Additional videos related to the tragedy:
Five dead, several injured in shooting at Annapolis newspaper Capital Gazette, https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7RH2u4V4088, 7 min. 17 secs, published by ABC News on 29th June 2018
Woman Claims She Was Stalked by Annapolis Gunman: ‘I Have Been Tormented’, https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=E5_c-akhoaY, 2 min. 25 secs published by Inside Edition on 2nd June 2018
Ravi: Jarrod Ramos is in police custody and may get a long sentence for his multiple murders as well as causing non-fatal injuries to others. But the dead journalists are gone! What a horrific tragedy they and their families and friends had to suffer because they did their job of reporting the truth in the public interest. This is very depressing and disheartening!
But then, such is life! The Capital Gazette did not allow this horrific tragedy to stop their work of reporting the truth in the public interest. They published the next day's newspaper too covering the tragedy at their own office! What awesome courage and dedication! I bow my head reverentially to the courage and dedication displayed by the staff of The Capital Gazette in the face of this great tragedy. I also pray to God to shower His Grace on those who lost their lives and give courage and strength to their friends and families to bear the loss, and give courage and strength to those who got injured in this tragedy.
---------------------------------------------------------
References for wiki page https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Capital_Gazette_shooting extracts given earlier in this post
2. Duncan, Ian; Bogel-Burroughs, Nicholas (June 28, 2018). "Sources identify suspect in Annapolis Capital shooting as Jarrod Ramos, who had long-running feud with paper". Baltimore Sun. Retrieved June 28, 2018.
3. Higgins, Tucker (June 28, 2018). "Suspect in Maryland newspaper shooting identified". CNBC. Retrieved June 28, 2018.
13. "5 dead in shooting at newspaper building in Maryland, suspect in custody". CBS News. Associated Press. June 28, 2018. Retrieved June 28, 2018.
22. Morrison, Sean (June 29, 2018). "Maryland shooting: Jarrod Warren Ramos, 38, named as suspect after five killed in gun attack on US newsroom". Evening Standard. Retrieved June 29, 2018.
23. "Annapolis shooting: Five killed in attack on US newspaper". BBC News. June 28, 2018. Retrieved June 28, 2018.
27. Bui, Lynh; Wiggins, Ovetta; Jackman, Tom (June 28, 2018). "Five dead, gunman in custody after targeted shooting at Capital Gazette building in Annapolis, police say". The Washington Post. Retrieved June 28, 2018.
28. Stanglin, Doug; Bacon, John; Cummings, William; Rossman, Sean (June 28, 2018). "5 killed in 'targeted attack' on Capital Gazette newspaper, police say". USA Today. Retrieved June 28, 2018.
29. Pratt, Tim (September 22, 2015). "Appellate court upholds ruling in favor of Capital-Gazette". Capital Gazette. Retrieved June 28, 2018.
30. Becket, Stefan. "Jarrod Ramos, 38, identified as suspect in Annapolis shooting". CBS News. Retrieved June 29, 2018.
31. cbsnews June 29 2018
32. "Gunman Was Methodical, Blocked Victims' Escape: Prosecutor". NBC4 Washington. Retrieved June 30, 2018.
--- end wiki extract references ---
[I thank wikipedia and casetext.com and have presumed that they will not have any objections to me sharing the above extracts from their website on this post which is freely viewable by all, and does not have any financial profit motive whatsoever.]
Eventually the lady complained to the police. The harassment stopped for some time but then restarted. The lady started having problems at work where she was first put on probation and then laid off. She thinks, based on some information conveyed to her by her supervisor then, that Ramos complained about her to her company which resulted in these problems for her but she cannot prove it.
Eventually it led to formal court proceedings where Ramos, on 26th July 2011, entered a guilty plea on a charge of criminal harassment (in a Maryland court). Ramos got a suspended 90-day jail sentence and was put on supervised probation, asked to continue with ongoing therapy and ordered to not have further contact with the harassment victim (the lady) or her family.
On 31st July 2011 (5 days later), a staff writer of The Capital (Gazette), Eric Thomas Hartley, authored an article in The Capital (Gazette) on this matter titled, "Jarrod wants to be your friend." https://casetext.com/case/ramos-v-hartley shows the whole article and this post's content related to the court case is mainly sourced from it (https://casetext.com/case/ramos-v-hartley).
A few days before the one year statue of limitations for defamation (in Maryland) expired, on 23rd July 2012, Ramos filed his initial defamation complaint against this article published in The Capital (Gazette). He seems to have done this on a pro se basis (doing it by himself without using an attorney, see https://www.ca10.uscourts.gov/clerk/filing-your-appeal/pro-se). He followed it up with a later complaint in October 2012 where he added the charge of invasion of privacy.
In November 2012 the appellees (persons complained against by Ramos i.e. Hartley and others at The Capital (Gazette)) filed a "Motion by Defendants to Dismiss with Prejudice the Complaint and a Request for Hearing".
Judge Maureen M. Lamasney conducted the full hearing on March 29, 2013. The final judgement/ruling on the case seems to have been in Sept. 2015 but I am not able to figure out for sure (from https://casetext.com/case/ramos-v-hartley). The judge granted the defendants (Hartley and others) motion to dismiss the case with prejudice as the complainant (Ramos) had not been able to "lay out a prima facie case for defamation or for invasion of privacy, or being placed in the false light". The judge also said, "There is nothing in those complaints that prove that anything that was published about you is, in fact, false. It all came from a public record. It was of the result of a criminal conviction. And it cannot give rise to a defamation suit."
Mr. Ramos says, "If I understand correctly, then the basis is that there's not a showing of falsity?"
The judge/court responds: "Correct."
Mr. Ramos says, "And rather that there is an application of privilege."
The judge/court responds: "Correct, both that the article was simply not defamatory, that it was based on public record, that you haven't alleged that it was false, and that the article appears to be substantially accurate, and it would fall into the privilege which would make any complaint unsustainable, because they reported a criminal case. They reported a matter of public interest."
The last part of the judgement (https://casetext.com/case/ramos-v-hartley) is as follows:
A discussion of defamation law would be an exercise in futility, because the appellant fails to come close to alleging a case of defamation. In his five-page brief, the appellant devotes two and one-half pages to legal argument. He never alleges that any basic fact contained in the article about his guilty plea is actually false. He claims only that "Hartley's column fails the test of fairness because he editorialized on the story's meaning." There is no allegation of any specific harm that he suffered as a result of the article. He simply described the harm as "incalculable, unforeseen, and potentially unknowable." That does not do it.
The appellant is pro se. A lawyer would almost certainly have told him not to proceed with this case. It reveals a fundamental failure to understand what defamation law is and, more particularly, what defamation law is not. The appellant is aggrieved because the newspaper story about his guilty plea assumed that he was guilty and that the guilty plea was, therefore, properly accepted. He is aggrieved because the story was sympathetic toward the harassment victim and was not equally understanding of the harassment perpetrator. The appellant wanted equal coverage of his side of the story. He wanted a chance to put the victim in a bad light, in order to justify and explain why he did what he did. That, however, is not the function of defamation law.
The appellant was charged with a criminal act. The appellant perpetrated a criminal act. The appellant plead guilty to having perpetrated a criminal act. The appellant was punished for his criminal act. He is not entitled to equal sympathy with his victim and may not blithely dismiss her as a "bipolar drunkard." He does not appear to have learned his lesson.
JUDGMENT AFFIRMED; COSTS TO BE PAID BY THE APPELLANT.
--- end judgement extract ---
Ravi: This dismissal of his defamation complaint by the court seems to have enraged Jarrod Ramos. He verbally attacked and taunted the newspaper and its staff on twitter. The final dismissal seems to have been in Sept. 2015. And in June 2018, the pent-up revenge emotions in Jarrod Ramos against the newspaper establishment, Capital Gazette, led him to do his horrific mass shotting act in their office.
From https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Capital_Gazette_shooting :
A mass shooting occurred on June 28, 2018, at the offices of newspaper publisher Capital Gazette Communications in Annapolis. The perpetrator killed five Capital Gazette employees and gravely wounded several in the attack on the newsroom.[3]
...
Suspect
Jarrod Warren Ramos[22][2][3] (born December 21, 1979), age 38, was captured by police and is in custody as a suspect, but he refused to identify himself.[13][23]
..
The suspect was also carrying a backpack with smoke bombs, flashbang devices, and grenades.[13] The police later announced that the attack had been targeted specifically at Capital Gazette Communications.[27][28]
Previous dispute with newspaper
In 2012, Ramos sued The Capital in a defamation case he brought over a 2011 newspaper article reporting on his guilty plea for criminal harassment.[2][29] After multiple appeals from Ramos, the defamation case against the newspaper was dismissed in 2015 by Prince George's County circuit court judge Maureen M. Lamasney, who ruled in favor of the paper because their reporting was based on publicly available records and Ramos had produced no evidence that the article was inaccurate.[29] Lamasney wrote in her court opinion that Ramos' complaint was "a fundamental failure to understand what defamation law is, and, more particularly, what defamation law is not".[29]
Former Capital editor and publisher Thomas Marquardt said Ramos began harassing the staff of the newspaper after the article on him was published in 2011.[2] In 2013, Marquardt contacted the Anne Arundel County Police Department about Ramos' behavior but the department did not pursue the report.[2] Marquardt also consulted the newspaper's attorneys about filing a restraining order against Ramos, and recalled telling them "This is a guy who is going to come in and shoot us."[2] After his lawsuit against the newspaper was dismissed, Ramos opened a Twitter account, which he used to attack the newspaper and taunt its owners and staff.[2][30] A former FBI senior profiler speculated that Ramos was "an injustice collector" which she described as "someone who goes through life...collect[ing] injustices, real or imagined".[31]
Charges relating to the attack
Ramos has been charged with five counts of first-degree murder, and ordered to be held without bail after he was determined to be a flight risk and a danger to the community. He has also been placed on suicide watch while in custody of law enforcement.[32]
[References from wiki page for above wiki extracts are given at the bottom of this post]
--- end wiki extracts ---
Additional videos related to the tragedy:
Five dead, several injured in shooting at Annapolis newspaper Capital Gazette, https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7RH2u4V4088, 7 min. 17 secs, published by ABC News on 29th June 2018
Woman Claims She Was Stalked by Annapolis Gunman: ‘I Have Been Tormented’, https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=E5_c-akhoaY, 2 min. 25 secs published by Inside Edition on 2nd June 2018
Ravi: Jarrod Ramos is in police custody and may get a long sentence for his multiple murders as well as causing non-fatal injuries to others. But the dead journalists are gone! What a horrific tragedy they and their families and friends had to suffer because they did their job of reporting the truth in the public interest. This is very depressing and disheartening!
But then, such is life! The Capital Gazette did not allow this horrific tragedy to stop their work of reporting the truth in the public interest. They published the next day's newspaper too covering the tragedy at their own office! What awesome courage and dedication! I bow my head reverentially to the courage and dedication displayed by the staff of The Capital Gazette in the face of this great tragedy. I also pray to God to shower His Grace on those who lost their lives and give courage and strength to their friends and families to bear the loss, and give courage and strength to those who got injured in this tragedy.
---------------------------------------------------------
References for wiki page https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Capital_Gazette_shooting extracts given earlier in this post
2. Duncan, Ian; Bogel-Burroughs, Nicholas (June 28, 2018). "Sources identify suspect in Annapolis Capital shooting as Jarrod Ramos, who had long-running feud with paper". Baltimore Sun. Retrieved June 28, 2018.
3. Higgins, Tucker (June 28, 2018). "Suspect in Maryland newspaper shooting identified". CNBC. Retrieved June 28, 2018.
13. "5 dead in shooting at newspaper building in Maryland, suspect in custody". CBS News. Associated Press. June 28, 2018. Retrieved June 28, 2018.
22. Morrison, Sean (June 29, 2018). "Maryland shooting: Jarrod Warren Ramos, 38, named as suspect after five killed in gun attack on US newsroom". Evening Standard. Retrieved June 29, 2018.
23. "Annapolis shooting: Five killed in attack on US newspaper". BBC News. June 28, 2018. Retrieved June 28, 2018.
27. Bui, Lynh; Wiggins, Ovetta; Jackman, Tom (June 28, 2018). "Five dead, gunman in custody after targeted shooting at Capital Gazette building in Annapolis, police say". The Washington Post. Retrieved June 28, 2018.
28. Stanglin, Doug; Bacon, John; Cummings, William; Rossman, Sean (June 28, 2018). "5 killed in 'targeted attack' on Capital Gazette newspaper, police say". USA Today. Retrieved June 28, 2018.
29. Pratt, Tim (September 22, 2015). "Appellate court upholds ruling in favor of Capital-Gazette". Capital Gazette. Retrieved June 28, 2018.
30. Becket, Stefan. "Jarrod Ramos, 38, identified as suspect in Annapolis shooting". CBS News. Retrieved June 29, 2018.
31. cbsnews June 29 2018
32. "Gunman Was Methodical, Blocked Victims' Escape: Prosecutor". NBC4 Washington. Retrieved June 30, 2018.
--- end wiki extract references ---
[I thank wikipedia and casetext.com and have presumed that they will not have any objections to me sharing the above extracts from their website on this post which is freely viewable by all, and does not have any financial profit motive whatsoever.]
Comments
Post a Comment