Originally posted by Surtur
Err, one could argue Adam is wasting time by acting like only one other group was involved with this besides the teens. When the reality is there were two other groups.
Adam's talking about the lawsuit and what the kid should do instead if the focus is to clear his name and it's not about a money grab, my son. Hope that clears up your confusion.
Originally posted by Robtard
No, one couldn't and here's why:Adam's talking about the lawsuit and what the kid should do instead if the focus is to clear his name and it's not about a money grab, my son. Hope that clears up your confusion.
What? He was responding to this post by me:
Originally posted by Surtur
What do you think it says about our society that the teenager is in more need of reforming his image in the eyes of the public than the grown ass adults involved?
What about that post suggests I only meant one of the groups?
Originally posted by Adam_PoE
Prove they are guilty of anything. He is going to bring a lawsuit, and in discovery, the defense is going to introduce every vile thing he has Tweeted about women, every video from that same day of his classmates calling girls "sluts" and shouting, "It's not rape if you enjoy it." They are going to show the videos of the chaperones telling the Black Hebrew Israelites that "Jesus was white" and high-fiving each other. You think anyone is going to watch that parade of evidence and think he is some kind of innocent on the back end of it? Think again.
Why do I need to prove who is guilty of what? My scenario is about a woman getting harassed by someone and wanting to take it to court. As of yet, nothing has been proven in court (tho I strongly feel he has a decent case for libel based on the info I posted prior). So in the interest of truth and accountability, we should ALL want this to happen. Damage is done to the teen and his family. If this forum is anything to go by, it looks there are still those in the left unwilling to change their minds on the matter so I doubt him doing a “better person” schtick will change much of anything (in fact, I can see some who either not believe a word or act he does or even would use this to think that this is him fessing up and admitting he is at fault). It’s not as if the liberal media (whose audience base is the one whose minds need changing) would cover it anyway.
Why would the actions of his classmates be relevant to this case where he is not the defendant? Won’t any good lawyer be able to block presentation of irrelevant evidence in a case? I don’t think “guilty by proximity” works in court cases.
Originally posted by Robtard
If it goes to court, Sandmann and his lawyer better hope it's an all Alt-Right jury.
If it goes to court, the defendant(s) will likely be granted a change of venue, because he is a single litigant located in Kentucky, whereas they represent multiple witnesses in whatever metropolitan city the media corporation is located—probably New York—and that is just the start. These are often bench trials, which means it would be presided over by a duly elected judge in that city, not bum-**** Kentucky where he is from.
Originally posted by Surtur
So he responded to my post talking about something different than I was, gotcha. Moving on.
No, he literally responded to the points you brought up, it's in this post:
Originally posted by Adam_PoE
Considering one is a designated extremist group on an active hate watch, they do not have an image that can be reformed. Why is society so concerned about an impressionable minor with his whole life ahead of him instead of grown adults in a domestic terrorist group who are a lost causes? Gee, the world will never know.
So it seems like you're either confused or realized your argument fell apart and are doing your thing when that happens. I'm not sure, I'll give the benefit of the doubt and go with confusion.
Originally posted by Robtard
No, he literally responded to the points you brought up, it's in this post:So it seems like you're either confused or realized your argument fell apart and are doing your thing when that happens. I'm not sure, I'll give the benefit of the doubt and go with confusion.
Nice spin, I mentioned the grown ass adults involved. He only comments on one group of adults. Moving on.
Originally posted by Adam_PoE
If it goes to court, the defendant(s) will likely be granted a change of venue, because he is a single litigant located in Kentucky, whereas they represent multiple witnesses in whatever metropolitan city the media corporation is located—probably New York—and that is just the start. These are often bench trials, which means it would be presided over by a duly elected judge in that city, not bum-**** Kentucky where he is from.
His lawyer better pray they settle then.
Originally posted by Silent Master
I don't imagine they'll want the further publicity of a court trail where their lying and misreporting will be in the news 24/7 until a judgement is reached.
I don't think they'll let their journalistic reputation be harmed by acknowledging wrongdoing. They have more incentive to drag this out and bankrupt him and his family until the suit is withdrawn.
Originally posted by Surtur
I think at least a few of these places will decide to settle outside of court.
Correct. Which is why they won't want this to go to court. If their lawyers are even shitty lawyers, they will advise to settle out of court. Those subpoenas will be devastating.
Originally posted by Adam_PoE
What is completely asinine is glossing over the distinction on purpose.
I know, so why are you doing it? There's plenty of evidence that they acted in bad faith, on purpose. There's a clear timeline and the only thing that needs to be proven is the timeline issue so that there's no plausible deniability. That's easy to do in front of a Jury.
YouTube is also complicit: they kept deleting the full 2 hour videos that people kept uploading that showed the young man was approached, not the other way around.
When this was making the rounds on the internet, mere hours after the events, which news outlet in their right mind would continue with their slander and libel? Unless they were hoping that it would never get any traction and they could continue to get away with their partisan hackery. Just like that actually did. Hence the lawsuit. 👆
Originally posted by Adam_PoE
To have a case, he has to demonstrate that they knew the information was wrong, and reported it anyway on purpose. Yeah, good luck with that.
Here are their choices:
1. Fight the case. Get subpoenaed. And then either destroy evidence (criminal, no longer a civil issue), or turn over the evidence and risk exposing far more insidious things that they are up to and get multiple criminal charges.
2. Settle outside of court.
🙂
100% they'll settle, but I hope they don't. The media was incredibly irresponsible, childish, and reactive. Through negligence, they did impactful harm on the boy and his family.
This is expected. In finance, there is the static theory, that goes into detail about indirect bankruptcy costs. As businesses fail, and lose revenue, top talent leaves, pursuing other ventures. Management is more focused on maintaining liquidity, instead of running a high-quality organization.
This is the case with media. It will only get worse, as the internet continues to supplant the media. Ever since the news was monetized, this was the end result.