Posted:
#26
Quote Originally Posted by SportsFan9698:
^^ does that get me boxed?
Cannot parry from the front---always the side. Some people real sensitive like that. 
0
Jesse Ventura is an behind
Posted:
#27
Quote Originally Posted by SportsFan9698:
What you said is factually true... or I assume it is. I was not in the courtroom, and neither were you.
Ventura is a public figure. He chose to be a public figure... he cannot claim victim status to this fact. Public figures are "defamed" constantly as any politician, actor, musician, or wrestler or former governor can attest. They cannot sue every time they feel they have been defamed. Yes it is their legal right to do so, but it is simply not in their interest.
Mark my words... Ventura chose poorly. Not only to sue the estate of a decorated veteran - a widowed woman. But to allow the PR nightmare to make a mockery of himself.
Yes he is broke, and I assume he could use the cash. For a guy with his name, he could make appearances to countless events to keep an income. He chooses to be a stubborn fool, and allow his testosterone and anger to make crucial decisions for him.
I will guarantee you that if he were contrite, and honest man, he would choose to apologize for his silly behavior, and just allow all of this to pass. He is stubborn, and he will not do so.
After you get past the legal facts and such... just remember this - He shot his mouth off to the wrong guy in the wrong place. He got knocked out in a way that would send most all of you cheering if you were in that spot at that time. He felt like less of a man, so he decided he would get even.
and now you have the rest of the story... as the Late Paul Harvey would say.
You just have double standard, don't you?
First of all, you DIDN'T have to be in the courtroom, the Court found it in favor for Ventura, meaning it's proven fact!!
Secondly, were you in the bar when the altercation happened the way you described? In addition, you seem to know exactly how Ventura thinks as well. I normally would ask since it's matter of opinion but since you try to pretend to be objective by using, "I was not in the courtroom, and neither were you" line.
Most likely you will be confused and go on an attack-mode, let me make it clear I am not on Ventura's side.
0
Posted:
#28
bunny
Relax bro.... who is attacking who? I was not even replying to you
take a pill and chill.....
I learned a long time ago that when you write, it is ASSUMED that it is your opinion that you are writing. It is redundant to say "in my opinion.... blah blah blah"
So since you are confused, I will say you are correct. The depiction of what I understand that happened in that bar, I will believe the decorated war veteran over Jesse Ventura's depiction. Clear enough?
If you care to read any reporting about how the jury's decision came down, you will understand that this was basically a hung jury in which a few later decided to relent and give the old man some money so they could go home. So yes I read plenty into those facts... Ventura is far from a victim in any way you look at this. This was far from a victory for him as well. He will regret the past few months of his life, for as long as he lives.
Clear enough? That is my assertion here... he made a very bad move and he will need to live with it now. Was it leagl? Yes
That is not the point.
0
Posted:
#31
Quote Originally Posted by SportsFan9698:
What you said is factually true... or I assume it is. I was not in the courtroom, and neither were you.
Ventura is a public figure. He chose to be a public figure... he cannot claim victim status to this fact. Public figures are "defamed" constantly as any politician, actor, musician, or wrestler or former governor can attest. They cannot sue every time they feel they have been defamed. Yes it is their legal right to do so, but it is simply not in their interest.
Mark my words... Ventura chose poorly. Not only to sue the estate of a decorated veteran - a widowed woman. But to allow the PR nightmare to make a mockery of himself.
Yes he is broke, and I assume he could use the cash. For a guy with his name, he could make appearances to countless events to keep an income. He chooses to be a stubborn fool, and allow his testosterone and anger to make crucial decisions for him.
I will guarantee you that if he were contrite, and honest man, he would choose to apologize for his silly behavior, and just allow all of this to pass. He is stubborn, and he will not do so.
After you get past the legal facts and such... just remember this - He shot his mouth off to the wrong guy in the wrong place. He got knocked out in a way that would send most all of you cheering if you were in that spot at that time. He felt like less of a man, so he decided he would get even.
and now you have the rest of the story... as the Late Paul Harvey would say.
The rest of the story? Not one thing you said is factually true, from your assertion that public figures cannot be defamed, to how civil juries work, to your assertion about legal facts, etc.
Let me make this easier for you.
To prove defamation, one must first prove that the statement is false. Not that it might be false, rather one has to prove falsity.
Proving falsity in this case means that the generator of the Estate's wealth made a statement that caused JV pecuniary harm (that's a big word for you so what it means is that it caused him to lose money).
And no doubt it did.
As I said in my original post, JV may have been looking to show the world the statement was false. The jury found that it was.
0
Posted:
#32
Quote Originally Posted by djbrow:
The rest of the story? Not one thing you said is factually true, from your assertion that public figures cannot be defamed, to how civil juries work, to your assertion about legal facts, etc.
Let me make this easier for you.
To prove defamation, one must first prove that the statement is false. Not that it might be false, rather one has to prove falsity.
Proving falsity in this case means that the generator of the Estate's wealth made a statement that caused JV pecuniary harm (that's a big word for you so what it means is that it caused him to lose money).
And no doubt it did.
As I said in my original post, JV may have been looking to show the world the statement was false. The jury found that it was.
So usiing your logic.... you obviously believe in your core that OJ never murdered anybody.
Courts and juries get it wrong all the time.
Take your sarcastic tone and shove it where no sun shines. It appears to me that you clearly cannot read well, or understand the intent of the OP.
I have said it several times.... so please read this very slowly....
I never claimed that JV was not in the "right" to sue. I stated repeatedly that it was simply stupid to do so. He loses in the end. I am certain that public opinion and history will show I am correct on that point.
Read that over and over... it will sink in at some point.
0
Posted:
#33
Of course. Most folks thought he should've backed away from the suit. He already thought of as kooky by a lot of folks. He kind of detailed some time back. Even though jury was more or less hung, hard to get consistency with witnesses---still a lot of people see it as a bad thing to pursue a war hero's widow over a bar 'brawl'.
0
Posted:
#34
Quote Originally Posted by Raiders22:
Of course. Most folks thought he should've backed away from the suit. He already thought of as kooky by a lot of folks. He kind of detailed some time back. Even though jury was more or less hung, hard to get consistency with witnesses---still a lot of people see it as a bad thing to pursue a war hero's widow over a bar 'brawl'.
Of course. Most folks thought he should've backed away from the suit. He already thought of as kooky by a lot of folks. He kind of detailed some time back. Even though jury was more or less hung, hard to get consistency with witnesses---still a lot of people see it as a bad thing to pursue a war hero's widow over a bar 'brawl'.
I'm not too familiar with what makes him kooky... I don't pay too much attention to him. This lawsuit stunt is enough kookiness for me.
He managed to piss everybody off in the political spectrum when he was governor. He ran as a Republican and had plenty of promises entering office to turn things around. That is enough to piss off all lf the democrats. Then once in office, he acted like a democrat and did nothing as I recall. There is enough to piss off all the conservatives. Now he is an old man that everybody can despise for suing the widow of the most decorated sniper in US armed forces history. Congrats Jesse... your name is correctly "defended"
0
Posted:
#35
Quote Originally Posted by SportsFan9698:
So usiing your logic.... you obviously believe in your core that OJ never murdered anybody.
Courts and juries get it wrong all the time.
Take your sarcastic tone and shove it where no sun shines. It appears to me that you clearly cannot read well, or understand the intent of the OP.
I have said it several times.... so please read this very slowly....
I never claimed that JV was not in the "right" to sue. I stated repeatedly that it was simply stupid to do so. He loses in the end. I am certain that public opinion and history will show I am correct on that point.
Read that over and over... it will sink in at some point.
I always think it is cute when people refer to themselves in the 3rd person. 
As for OJ, I do think he was guilty but the State didn't prove their case (most legal analysts agree with this) but that is a different matter.
Actually, you didn't say anything about him having the "right to sue." In fact, you called him names for doing so.
And my response was that he is suing the Estate because the originator of the money in the Estate made false statements. Again, the jury believed that it was false.
For example, let's say your father accused you of breaking into the family home and stealing things. Since he did claim this, your right of redress would be suing to clear your good name (I know that last part is a stretch). It doesn't really matter who you sue, rather you are trying to say it isn't true.
He did the same thing.
0
Posted:
#36
Quote Originally Posted by Raiders22:
Of course. Most folks thought he should've backed away from the suit. He already thought of as kooky by a lot of folks. He kind of detailed some time back. Even though jury was more or less hung, hard to get consistency with witnesses---still a lot of people see it as a bad thing to pursue a war hero's widow over a bar 'brawl'.
Of course. Most folks thought he should've backed away from the suit. He already thought of as kooky by a lot of folks. He kind of detailed some time back. Even though jury was more or less hung, hard to get consistency with witnesses---still a lot of people see it as a bad thing to pursue a war hero's widow over a bar 'brawl'.
1) Most 'folks' never said he should back away. Any legal analyst would know it was his only right of redress.
2) Jury being hung is not true. You don't understand the civil jury system.
So, again, you have posted a statement that has no truth. But at least this time, you moved up from a blog to Sportsfan for your citation. 
0
Posted:
#37
Kooky refers to the conspiracy thing, getting mad at country, saying not stand for anthem, etc.
They had to decide to agree that 8/10 was okay; all 10 weren't agreeing is all.
Sure, lots of folks were uncomfortable with him pursuing the suit. But of course, it is his right. Just in his position they felt long term effects were worse, etc.
I really could care less and only kept up by osmosis. Just funny to me the people that took a stand on it. 
0
Posted:
#38
The only reason was that the guy was dead. So if he was still alive most would of said "Yeah Jessie, sue the SOB ?
Dead or not Jessie had the right and sue the estate. Just because someone has passed away doesn't give them the right for inaccurate or out and out lies to be around.
The only ones that care are people on message boards and talking heads trying to fill 10 minutes on TV. The rest of the nation has already forgoten about it. I believe in the end Jessie will make some donation to the SEALS and come out OK.
You guys really should listen to DJ, this is his field.
0
Posted:
#39
Actually his field is NOT public relations or what everyday guy thinks. 
Nobody said he cannot sue; just didn't think it was a great idea. I mean this guy had threatened to sue lots of folks, conspiracy therorist, pro wrestler, etc.
Sure nobody cares---yet here we are discussing it along with all the other folks that were while it was going on. I thought he was a nice change when he ran fe governor. But wheels just came flying off.
But I agree it is silly and sometimes a slow news day. I am sure I would've sued also. I just prefer it would have been a more normal person doing the suing I guess.
0
Posted:
#40
Talk about being misinformed here or you just don't care. Ventura was slandered in a book and has every right to defend his name. He said he didn't care about the money, but they wouldn't come clean with him out of court so the only way to clear his name of defamation is in court. It wasn't his fault that the other guy was killed at a gun range. Besides, the widow isn't paying the settlement an insurance firm is handling it. If I was being slandered and people telling lies about me you bet I'd do everything to clear my name. If you hate the guy it ain't my problem, but get your facts straight and stop twisting the bullsht around.
0
Posted:
#41
Quote Originally Posted by MaxDemon:
Talk about being misinformed here or you just don't care. Ventura was slandered in a book and has every right to defend his name. He said he didn't care about the money, but they wouldn't come clean with him out of court so the only way to clear his name of defamation is in court. It wasn't his fault that the other guy was killed at a gun range. Besides, the widow isn't paying the settlement an insurance firm is handling it. If I was being slandered and people telling lies about me you bet I'd do everything to clear my name. If you hate the guy it ain't my problem, but get your facts straight and stop twisting the bullsht around.
Talk about being misinformed here or you just don't care. Ventura was slandered in a book and has every right to defend his name. He said he didn't care about the money, but they wouldn't come clean with him out of court so the only way to clear his name of defamation is in court. It wasn't his fault that the other guy was killed at a gun range. Besides, the widow isn't paying the settlement an insurance firm is handling it. If I was being slandered and people telling lies about me you bet I'd do everything to clear my name. If you hate the guy it ain't my problem, but get your facts straight and stop twisting the bullsht around.
Did he get hit in the bar or not? Why is this up in the air? Either he did or he didn't. All 10 couldn't agree on this or no?
0
Hot Forum Topics
