Answer: No, because the killing by the policeman was justifiable
Explanation:
The woman has no part that much to play in the murder of the man, because asides the man being shut outside there was a probability he would have equally be shut inside too if met by the police officer there, the killing by the police officer was justifiable as the man was caught in the act and could possibly have shut the police officer too.
Remember why you started. Remember that thru out all the pain the pain of trying is better then the pain of regret
Answer and Explanation:
1. Prosecutors may claim that the inaccurate report to which Rachel had access could induce misinterpretation on her part and that, in any case, Peter was already on the police for vandalism, which contributed to Rachel's conclusion. These justifications would not be successful, because Rachel had many ways to find out what actually happened to Peter.
2. Peter would sue Rachel for defamation and would likely succeed, as he has several witnesses that Rachel released incorrect information and that it affects his reputation.
3. The current malice is necessary in this case because Peter is a very well-known and popular person, and it is important that the current malice is inserted in the case, to speed up the process.
4. The fair report privilege can be used to protect Rachel, since the false information about Peter that she exposed, had as its only source a public document that induced her to publish the defamation.
