THe reaction against him certainly was disproportional to what he did.
What "he did"? You mean, try and calm down his peers when things got heated from the racist lying adults?
All you need to do is watch 6:30-7:05 to see that this was a massive hit job on a teen. All because the guy bought a souvenir hat during a school fieldtrip. The "Vietnam vet" that lied about his service, completely lied about what happened, and it wasn't even the first time he's done this.
Our saint Nick Sandmann simply stood and tried to defuse the situation (with video evidence) while waiting for his school bus while some grown-ass man decided to pick on him for no reason (Sorry, the reason being his race).
The Following User Says Thank You to Oling_Roachinen For This Useful Post:
The smarter play for this kid would be to sue a variety of media entities, and then identify deeper-pocketed individuals who made defamatory statements about him on social media and rope them into the litigation too.
And abandon the Trump propaganda routine. That just makes it look like he's either not serious or is being funded by some pro-Trump entity for abusive purposes.
The Following 10 Users Say Thank You to flylock shox For This Useful Post:
I would sue too. You can call me a lot of things, but don't call me a Donald Trump supporter!
I don't see how this succeeds. This is all about him wanting to keep his 15 minutes of fame going. I am sure some lawyer saw this as an easy way to make some money. I hope the WaPo wins and the judge makes him pay legal fees.
__________________
"A pessimist thinks things can't get any worse. An optimist knows they can."
Last edited by FlamesAddiction; 02-19-2019 at 11:11 PM.
I don't see how this succeeds. This is all about him wanting to keep his 15 minutes of fame going. I am sure some lawyer saw this as an easy way to make some money. I hope the WaPo wins and the judge makes him pay legal fees.
Keep his 15 minutes of fame going? I'm sure he would have preferred to never be 'famous' instead of having his name dragged through the mud as a racist while receiving death threats because some jackass lied about him and the media didn't bother looking at videos. Blaming the victim here because he's trying to take the only legal steps he has...Poor kid.
Anyways, that lawyer he got isn't just some random sleazy ambulance chaser.
Wood has had numerous notable clients. He was the lead attorney against DaVita that reached a settlement...of half a billion dollars.
To say he landed safely would be a considerable understatement. On Monday, DaVita confirmed it will pay $450 million to settle the case. The settlement, according to Wood (and to Wilbanks in a comment to my Reuters colleague Jon Stempel), is the biggest-ever false claims recovery in a case in which the Justice Department did not intervene. Under the statute, the whistleblowers are entitled to between 25 and 30 percent of the recovery.
More recently he reached an undisclosed settlement for his client, Burke Ramsay, with CBS for implicating him in the murder of his sister Jonbenet.
Cain’s lawyer is L. Lin Wood, a well-known Atlanta-based trial attorney who has carved out a successful career representing the high-profile and falsely accused, often seeking eye-popping damages for those he believes have been libeled or slandered in the press.
...
With Wood’s hiring, Cain has a powerful ally on his side. A partner with Wood Hernacki & Evans LLC, Wood has a three-decade-long career prosecuting, and defending, celebrity clients, sometimes winning mega-settlements on their behalf. He is a fierce advocate.
Last edited by Oling_Roachinen; 02-20-2019 at 12:11 AM.
The smarter play for this kid would be to sue a variety of media entities, and then identify deeper-pocketed individuals who made defamatory statements about him on social media and rope them into the litigation too.
The lawyer for Covington Catholic High School junior Nick Sandmann says he will begin filing defamation lawsuits this week, as the Kentucky school’s diocese released a private investigative report clearing students of instigating the Jan. 18 incident at the Lincoln Memorial.
“Nick Sandmann is 16 years old & has 2˝+ years to identify accusers & sue them,” Atlanta attorney L. Lin Wood said Saturday on Twitter. “No member of mainstream & social media mob who attacked him should take comfort from not being sued in initial round of lawsuits which will commence next week. Time is Nick’s friend, not his enemy.”
Quote:
Originally Posted by flylock shox
And abandon the Trump propaganda routine. That just makes it look like he's either not serious or is being funded by some pro-Trump entity for abusive purposes.
But the problem is that it's the narrative that was used to crucify him. Everyone knows now that the only reason this kid was targeted was because of his hat. We'll still have the idiots come in and explain that his "smirk" obviously meant he was mocking the guy - despite actual video evidence of him trying to calm his classmates and prevent them from engaging with the racist cowardly adults. So it's hard to separate that rhetoric from the lawsuit when it's the reason this existed in the first place.
And the lawsuit with Washington Post specifically, for anything to happen, it will come down to whether the post had done its due diligence required of journalists. The argument will be that it posted recklessly false and misleading information instead of doing its due diligence and the question will be "why?" with the argument being that it was because they were happy to post an anti-Trump story.
Obviously, as a Trump-hater it's hard to cheer for someone who has a bunch of Trump supporters rallying behind him, but the boy did absolutely nothing except try and stop his classmates from engaging. Despite his hat, he's a rolemodel.
The Following User Says Thank You to Oling_Roachinen For This Useful Post:
Well, that makes more sense as a strategy. I'm not persuaded the Trump line of attack is a winner though, unless they're hoping to establish malice on the basis of it, which seems a long shot.
I don't think it's too hard to sympathize with the kid's position - MAGA hat or not. He was eaten alive on social media (and regular media) for a nothing event that ultimately proved to be an even-less-than-nothing event. And he's a kid.
I'm mildly curious to see how the case goes, as defamation laws in the States seem much more restrictive than up here. And I'm a fan of wrangling the idiocy of social media mobs.
Well, that makes more sense as a strategy. I'm not persuaded the Trump line of attack is a winner though, unless they're hoping to establish malice on the basis of it, which seems a long shot.
I think they think it gives them another shot in the chamber. An answer to "why" the journalist didn't try to post a fair and accurate report on the incident. A mistake or poor journalism is one thing, but given almost a 'malice reason' for doing so might help their cause. Washington Post is still doubling down on the MAGA hat as some sort of provocation making Nick Sandmann in the wrong. https://www.washingtonpost.com/lifes...=.00308d1ce862
Quote:
Journalist Savannah Guthrie asked him whether he thought the public outrage over his behavior might have been different were it not for the hat. “That’s possible,” Sandmann said, which was his most self-aware utterance of the interview.
Quote:
Originally Posted by flylock shox
I'm mildly curious to see how the case goes, as defamation laws in the States seem much more restrictive than up here. And I'm a fan of wrangling the idiocy of social media mobs.
The Rolling Stone's "A Rape on Campus" is probably a somewhat relatable incident. At least I'm sure that's what Sandmann's lawyer is hoping. Rolling Stone published a story about an alleged fraternity rape, they posted what the accuser had said and published the very one sided story.
Except the accuser's story was (likely) fabricated as it contained many disturbing discrepancies. She said she had been raped during a party as part of a pledge hazing, except the date she noted there was no party and the fraternity was not rushing (so no pledges). The number of people who were involved changed, times, locations, what happened (blowjobs changed to gang-rape), the aftermath all changed and most importantly the "ringleader" of the rape was not a student of the school (let alone a member of the fraternity) and was out of state at the time of the alleged rape. And was also an ex-classmate of hers from high-school. All of this could have been verified and the story likely unravels quickly, but the author didn't bother to do their due diligence.
Anyways, a bunch of lawsuits were filed. I think perhaps the most comparable was that of Nicole Eramo, the associate dean who was responsible for handling sexual harassment at the school. The accuser's story painted the school's handling of the alleged rape in a bad light and many called for Eramo to be fired etc.
So she sues for 7.5M, based on"Rolling Stone and Erdely's highly defamatory and false statements about Dean Eramo were not the result of an innocent mistake. They were the result of a wanton journalist who was more concerned with writing an article that fulfilled her preconceived narrative about the victimization of women on American college campuses, and a malicious publisher who was more concerned about selling magazines to boost the economic bottom line for its faltering magazine, than they were about discovering the truth or actual facts." And she wins and is awarded 3M.
So pretty much the author posted a one-sided story based mostly on that of an untrustworthy individual that wasn't fact checked because it fulfilled a preconceived narrative of the author, and the publisher didn't care because it brought in views. A person was defamed in the story so they were awarded damages. I'm sure that's what Sandmann happens in this case as well.
Of course the bigger issue will be that it was actually a video that caused the outrage. Sure the narrative around the video was wrong, but most people just bullied a kid because of his smile. A lot different than a completely fabricated story.
Honest question.......how do you know that? I know really nothing about the kid, just curious how you came up with that conclusion.
Of course I'm basing it solely on his actions during the incident. Seems to be a fair way to judge him when millions judged him based on his smile...Of course maybe he goes home and sacrifices newborn kittens to Satan.
Anyways, a grown man comes up to him, clearly trying to illicit a response, with his racist adult buddies and he just stood there and smiled. When things got heated between his peer and some jerk telling him to go back to Europe and starts shouting profanity at the kid, Sandmann pleads with his classmate to not engage. His action there (not his apparel...) is the exact response I would want from someone in his position. And clearly showing 100% he was trying to respectfully defuse and prevent anything from happening.
Last edited by Oling_Roachinen; 02-20-2019 at 02:34 AM.
People rushed (me included) to judge that kid, based on one tiny percentage of video ‘evidence’ that went viral across hundreds of news sources across the world.
I think we need to learn from that. Rushing to judgement, wanting instant retribution, never mind getting the full picture is something that is happening far too often.
We think we’re better informed with all the information that is instantly available to us. But if we are drawing instant conclusions from the first bit of information available to us, that isn’t being informed, it is being biased and seeking data to confirm our bias.
That is pretty much as far as from being informed as it is possible to be.
I want to learn from this.
The Following 4 Users Say Thank You to Barnet Flame For This Useful Post:
I want to learn from this too! In fact, I already have learned from it - specifically, that some of you people are either more sympathetic to white supremacy than you let on, or just extremely gullible.
Shame on you for letting the alt-right messaging machine let you think these ####ty racist kids are somehow the victims.
The Following User Says Thank You to Dogbert For This Useful Post:
I really look forward to when Nick and his racist buddies get deposed and cross examined to find every racist thing they and their parents have ever did or said, which shouldn't be too hard to dig up on a bunch of maga hat wearing rich boys from Kentucky. He's digging his own grave with this lawsuit.
I really look forward to when Nick and his racist buddies get deposed and cross examined to find every racist thing they and their parents have ever did or said, which shouldn't be too hard to dig up on a bunch of maga hat wearing rich boys from Kentucky. He's digging his own grave with this lawsuit.
I’d be concerned that you could be sued for liable. Burke named Calgarypuck posters in his defamation suit. I dontt think it went anywhere
I’d be concerned that you could be sued for liable. Burke named Calgarypuck posters in his defamation suit. I dontt think it went anywhere
I'm not concerned in the least. The kids are mocking a native guy singing and there's video proof of it. The one kid wasn't doing it. Good for him I guess.
