Sandmann Loses
-
Appeal options? I appreciate why defamation has such a high bar especially when it comes to the media, but what happened to that young man was abhorrent.
@LuFins-Dad they plan to appeal. Of course the bar is much higher for a public figure to prove defamation, but was Sandmann really a public figure? Was what was said about him demonstrably false?
Also, you really can't appeal because you didn't like the verdict. You have to prove a judicial error of some kind.
Maybe there's a case....
-
Summary Judgement - The process is called summary judgment and it allows a judge to end a case early, before a party ever has the chance to present arguments, witnesses, or evidence. The case will be over and you never will have a jury or the chance to argue in front of the jury.
-
@jon-nyc said in Sandmann Loses:
I thought he already settled.
He settled with CNN and another outlet. Not with the others.
-
@jon-nyc said in Sandmann Loses:
I thought he already settled.
He settled with CNN and another outlet. Not with the others.
@George-K said in Sandmann Loses:
@jon-nyc said in Sandmann Loses:
I thought he already settled.
He settled with CNN and another outlet. Not with the others.
I wonder if he had better cases against them or if they just chose not to gamble.
-
People. All lawyers ask for Summary Judgement at the beginning of a civil case. Except in the absolute most cut-and-dried cases, SJ is denied by the judge. This only mean the case proceeds as any civil case might. Picking juries, etc.
“Cry havoc and let slip the DOGE of war!”
Warning: I post things that interest me. Read and comment at your own discretion.
-
People. All lawyers ask for Summary Judgement at the beginning of a civil case. Except in the absolute most cut-and-dried cases, SJ is denied by the judge. This only mean the case proceeds as any civil case might. Picking juries, etc.
@Jolly said in Sandmann Loses:
People. All lawyers ask for Summary Judgement at the beginning of a civil case. Except in the absolute most cut-and-dried cases, SJ is denied by the judge. This only mean the case proceeds as any civil case might. Picking juries, etc.
The way I read it, the judge provided a summary judgment against Sandmann.
-
@Jolly said in Sandmann Loses:
People. All lawyers ask for Summary Judgement at the beginning of a civil case. Except in the absolute most cut-and-dried cases, SJ is denied by the judge. This only mean the case proceeds as any civil case might. Picking juries, etc.
The way I read it, the judge provided a summary judgment against Sandmann.
@Horace said in Sandmann Loses:
@Jolly said in Sandmann Loses:
People. All lawyers ask for Summary Judgement at the beginning of a civil case. Except in the absolute most cut-and-dried cases, SJ is denied by the judge. This only mean the case proceeds as any civil case might. Picking juries, etc.
The way I read it, the judge provided a summary judgment against Sandmann.
If so, then the Judge has found he has no standing.
-
@Horace said in Sandmann Loses:
@Jolly said in Sandmann Loses:
People. All lawyers ask for Summary Judgement at the beginning of a civil case. Except in the absolute most cut-and-dried cases, SJ is denied by the judge. This only mean the case proceeds as any civil case might. Picking juries, etc.
The way I read it, the judge provided a summary judgment against Sandmann.
If so, then the Judge has found he has no standing.
@Jolly said in Sandmann Loses:
@Horace said in Sandmann Loses:
@Jolly said in Sandmann Loses:
People. All lawyers ask for Summary Judgement at the beginning of a civil case. Except in the absolute most cut-and-dried cases, SJ is denied by the judge. This only mean the case proceeds as any civil case might. Picking juries, etc.
The way I read it, the judge provided a summary judgment against Sandmann.
If so, then the Judge has found he has no standing.
This is bad.
I don't see this as about Sandmann at all. If I break into your house and steal your vinyl, then you call the police, and I get prosecuted. If I gin up a mob with lies, get you fired from your job, make you unemployable, and make your home unsafe, that's far worse. Yet nothing happens to me.
Legally, we need to do something about doxxing and cancel culture. Apply what we currently have, write new ones, something. Because right now, destroying lives is completely legal. And the more you've accomplished, the bigger a target you make.
-
-
It's helpful when one can prove damages. He's made millions - more than he might have expected to make in a lifetime with normal earnings.
-
-
@jon-nyc said in Sandmann Loses:
@George-K But less than you've lost in 4 months, right? lol
Harrumph....
No.
-
@jon-nyc said in Sandmann Loses:
@George-K But less than you've lost in 4 months, right? lol
Harrumph....
No.
@George-K said in Sandmann Loses:
@jon-nyc said in Sandmann Loses:
@George-K But less than you've lost in 4 months, right? lol
Harrumph....
No.
I feel your pain, Kimosabe.
