There have been many more on the opposite end.....I understand that justice , by design, is a two way street... but regardless, my decision as well as yours...are a summation of what YOU believe to be fact or percieved fact....If I make you believe that the sky is actually red....it then becomes a fact to you....thats what lawyers get paid to do...conversely, I, executing my civil duties as a juror, in this case, have an obligation to decipher what is actually FACT and what is a really realy good argument....there was not clear enough evidence that wouldve indicted Chris Kyle...and maybe I would have been the Minority on the jury...but thats why theres twelve...
Whether or not Chris defamed JV...to me....at this point I could care less...why JV is a doosh rocket is becuase of the lengths he is willing to go to screw over Chris' widow....I suppose to some end, it would matter if JV was entitled to an amount of money but how in the world can you assign a dollar amount to defamation???
So because, realistically, theres no end to this....i will say that you guys arent wrong in my opinion....nor am I...in my opinion. We believe justice to be a matter right and wrong. And I believe that in order to defame character...one must first possess character....thats a pretty subjective notion. Good for you to be able to look beyond the trees to see the forest...I tend to make sure the tree is is actually a tree...
What would be example on how this damaged his character? Did it make him lose a job or anything else. Was that proven somehow in the trial? Or it it more of just a blow to his pride or his reputation since he's supposed to be this big tough action hero pro wrestling governor (former). If anything he hurt himself more in perusing the lawsuit. Especially after the death of Kyle. I mean do you think everything Jesse has ever said about anyone on his radio show or TV or interviews has been the total truth about that person. I doubt it. I'm just asking honestly could care less about the parties involved, if your gonna sue somebody from talking bad about you, your a POS. Sent from my SM-G900R4 using Tapatalk
There is a reasonable distinction between fact and someone trying to sway your emotions to make that fact make you feel one way or another. Red is red. The sky is red, that fact can't be changed. What the lawyer can do is tell you the sky is red and make you feel angry and hateful because that's what the color means, so because the sky is red the husband killed the wife because the sky made him angry. Just going in circles now. = ) You should be able to ignore that and simply look at the facts. The sky is red. It had nothing to do with the husband killing the wife. Insanity plea thrown out, guilty of first degree. I mean are you saying if you meet a good enough con man who can sway your emotions you would buy from them? You'd pay the 35% interest rate on a kirby vacuum because it's made out of space materials with a lifetime warranty?
So if someone comes on TV and says you're a cowardly, yellow bellied cur (I have no idea what that means I just read it in books) who masturbates to men, you would be a POS for suing that guy?
So given ALL of this thread and ALL the other arguments to state YOUR feelings and emotions on this topic or any other....youve only stated FACT in order for readers to summize that what YOU are saying is the coerrect and factual way to think or believe??? you have stated what you believe to be fact...you have stated opinions...and you have had debates with several people on several emotionall charged topics...you dont think that is coincidental??? EVERYTHING we do is emotionally charged...often times there is undisputable fact involved in the decisions we reach...often times we have to summize our own belief of fact...if you can do that to the letter of the law 100% of the time then good for you ...I cant...i have been a law enforcment officer and I have learned why "officer discretion" exists. I have also been an infantry Marine for most of my adult life....the consequences of my decision making have had a finality much different from the awarding of $1.8m settlement...i pray to God that the decisions I have made on ones guilt have been true and relevant to my moral character...because if they arent, there is literally hell to pay...but thats me and my experience of 36 years on this planet...I make decisions every day....its no different when "justice" is involved....sorry guys I have exhausted every brain cell I have for the day....I cant argue this point anymore...this is only how I do what I do....
No because there wouldn't be any suing on my part. I'd probably be in court being charged with assault though if it was someone I knew if not then nothing would probably come out of it. ha ha a cur is a dog btw. Sent from my SM-G900R4 using Tapatalk
I wasn't ever trying to convince anyone jv was innocent nor chris. You're missing the point. You're basically saying the best story teller gets your vote in court of law. It's kind of why California is in a mess.
Ummmm....NO....I am saying its up to me who the story teller is.... And so you have proven exactly my point....all the stuff I have said....^^^^^^thats what youve extrapulated from it??? You arrived at that decision not based on fact because the only facts that I presented are personal data about me...everything else has been obsevation or opinion...see how life works???
The OJ Simpson trial is a prime example of this kind of thinking, there was no way that jury was going to believe that the nice man before them slit anyone's throat no matter how much evidence there was. The "widow" has absolutely nothing to do with the facts of the case, just that she benefitted from said lies!
Never said I was going to "pick" anyone...but since you're argumentative with anyone who doesn't agree with you this will be my last post on this hijacked thread... Two people tell opposing stories...one isn't telling the right one....it's up to me to "decide" based off the law...which if you've ever actually been a juror you know that the court provides the jury foreman with all applicable laws relevant to the case...it's up to ME to cast MY vote...when it's ME, I use MY critical thinking to decide....if the evidence is preponderant..then that's MY vote...simple enough right??? My apologies to everyone else who wanted to talk about the Chris Kyle vs Jesse Ventura thread...I will keep my opinions to myself...
Im not necessarily argumentative in this case, I think you're basing this thought off of your emotions. I just can't understand where or what youre coming from. I did misinterpret your last statement, you never did say pick, I somehow read it that way. It is up to you to cast your vote, but you're saying you do it based on emotions from what I can understand.
We arent being mean, I was pointing out a fact that your statement about not being argumentative was incorrect. You have a tendency to contradict yourself.
I'm wondering how many people here were sitting in the bar in Texas. So many "facts" seem to be flying around here. There are three sides to this story. Kyle's, Ventura's, and the truth. I certainly don't believe Ventura would go the lengths he did if Kyle's statements were true. As far as Ventura being/not being a SEAL, the Department of the Navy recognizes him as being a SEAL. SCFox
