Board 8 > Johnny Depp vs. Amber Heard Aftermath

(+) Yeah! (+)

ChaosTonyV4 posted...

Well first of all, it was not dopes on Twitter dot com, it was dopes in this topic.

And yeah, one bad woman who lost her court case is way less worrying and offensive to me than the obsessive and unhealthy way this has been covered.

When the whole situation started I was 100% on team Deppand I still ambut many fans of this case are extremely unhinged, and theres good reason to be worried about other victims of abuse who are probably going to get sued and will become the next spectator sport or whatever, our culture is not healthy, my dudes.

Yes, the ghosts of Board 8 in your head were certain that she snorted coke on the stand, even though everyone reminded you nobody in the topic felt that.

No victims of abuse are going to get sued if they tell the truth and you're ridiculous for thinking otherwise. You are patently absurd because they'll get thrown out well before that. The only reason this one didn't was because of the overwhelming evidence Depp had supporting it, which would not exist elsewhere. You make up this weird shit in your head and you think of all of these awful boogeymen scenarios which are inconsequential.

It isn't "one bad woman lost her court case." Stop being a chickenshit and say it how it really is.

A man accused of the most vile accusations imaginable was able to clear his name and discuss the abuse he received from a woman. Why not be thrilled that more men are reaching out for mental health and bringing up the abusive behavior they've received now? Why not be glad men are able to discuss abuse they've faced and get help for it? It's clear that's not a big issue to you, and the idea of abuse is the less important part to you here, which is gross.

Actual victims of abuse, male and female, are thrilled Depp won. They are glad to see this verdict. They aren't cowering, wondering if they will be the next victims of a lawsuit, because that shit is stupid and doesn't matter to victims of abuse.

PrivateBiscuit1 posted...

Yes, the ghosts of Board 8 in your head were certain that she snorted coke on the stand, even though everyone reminded you nobody in the topic felt that.

No victims of abuse are going to get sued if they tell the truth and you're ridiculous for thinking otherwise. You are patently absurd because they'll get thrown out well before that. The only reason this one didn't was because of the overwhelming evidence Depp had supporting it, which would not exist elsewhere. You make up this weird shit in your head and you think of all of these awful boogeymen scenarios which are inconsequential.

It isn't "one bad woman lost her court case." Stop being a chickenshit and say it how it really is.

A man accused of the most vile accusations imaginable was able to clear his name and discuss the abuse he received from a woman. Why not be thrilled that more men are reaching out for mental health and bringing up the abusive behavior they've received now? Why not be glad men are able to discuss abuse they've faced and get help for it? It's clear that's not a big issue to you, and the idea of abuse is the less important part to you here, which is gross.

Actual victims of abuse, male and female, are thrilled Depp won. They are glad to see this verdict. They aren't cowering, wondering if they will be the next victims of a lawsuit, because that shit is stupid and doesn't matter to victims of abuse.

Lmao ok so lets go to the tape:

There's no way she actually just snorted some cocaine there, right? She can't be THAT stupid.

...I doubt she did, but that is an incredibly interesting way to blow your nose. Like, why the nostril pinch? Why is she wiping her nose with her finger immediately after and not the tissue she quite literally has in her hand?

....That's absolutely nonsensical to consider and I was completely expecting to say no way, but that's....very peculiar.
I'm going to throw my hand into the "she's not" camp for the moment just based on pure disbelief that it could be possible, but I'm not going to say someone is out of their mind if they think otherwise.

She didnt even look like she was blowing her nose at all

There are two more posts going Well it IS suspicious. Motherfucker if no one was open to the possibility they would have said so, we had 5 wishy-washy posters literally entertaining the idea, no one was willing to commit because it IS a fucking insane thing, but more people considered it than not. (Ironically you WERE the most against it, which is probably why youre misremembering, you pointed out she seems to just blows her nose weird.)

Also you are just blatantly wrong that no victims will suffer from this. This was literally a defamation case. If a victim of abuse has no concrete evidence and says so and so abused me, they are going to lose if he they cant prove it.

Also when have I ever been afraid to say what I mean? This shit has you mad goofy.

Sorry dude, there are plenty of actual victims of abuse who are horrified by this as well, and your implication that theyre not literally proves my point. If youd shut down your emotional reflex on this you could imagine a case where a real victim of abuse who spoke out is scared because they didnt keep receipts, and if youre gonna deny that then you are truly not rational.

ChaosTonyV4 posted...

When the whole situation started I was 100% on team Deppand I still ambut many fans of this case are extremely unhinged, and theres good reason to be worried about other victims of abuse who are probably going to get sued and will become the next spectator sport or whatever, our culture is not healthy, my dudes.

This keeps getting brought up from people clutching their pearls about "the precedent" this will set, but I doubt any of those hypothetical cases will have anywhere NEAR the amount of evidence in their favor as Depp had, and look at the split PR about that case even to this day.

And if they DO have all the evidence Depp had? Then GOOD, they should sue the fuck out of their false accuser until false accusations stop happening.

Actual victims of abuse should be furious about this, but more-so that Amber Heard used their good faith movement to destroy a man's career/life and got caught out on it.

They should viciously and with prejudice rebuke her and anyone who tries to do similar. Like any sane person.

Also re-reading the first topic made me realize when I actually decided this shit was crazy.

I said, Wow, there are people on both sides treating a case involving domestic abuse like a spectator sport, this is weird.

And Biscuit replied Tony I hope you never have to deal with being a victim of domestic abuse.

Literally implying that because the way people were drawing legitimate entertainment from it weirded me out, I must not care about domestic abuse.

I was blindsided by how genuinely insane that is.

Oh on that we agree. Rittenhouse and Casey Anthony are two other bizarre examples.

But I would argue that Biscuit's daily debriefings were super necessary because you didn't have to actually follow the trial to see what was going on.

ChaosTonyV4 posted...

There are two more posts going Well it IS suspicious. Motherfucker if no one was open to the possibility they would have said so, we had 5 wishy-washy posters literally entertaining the idea, no one was willing to commit because it IS a fucking insane thing, but more people considered it than not. (Ironically you WERE the most against it, which is probably why youre misremembering, you pointed out she seems to just blows her nose weird.)

literally none of these posts you posted said they believed it what are you doing

ChaosTonyV4 posted...

Also you are just blatantly wrong that no victims will suffer from this. This was literally a defamation case. If a victim of abuse has no concrete evidence and says so and so abused me, they are going to lose if he they cant prove it.

Also when have I ever been afraid to say what I mean? This shit has you mad goofy.

Sorry dude, there are plenty of actual victims of abuse who are horrified by this as well, and your implication that theyre not literally proves my point. If youd shut down your emotional reflex on this you could imagine a case where a real victim of abuse who spoke out is scared because they didnt keep receipts, and if youre gonna deny that then you are truly not rational.

This is the fearmongering talking points that dopey people who don't understand the legal system want you to believe and bad faith actors. You're acting chickenshit because you're refusing to touch the actual crux of the argument and you just go "Oh, it's just about some woman who lost a court case" when you know it's a lot more than that, and only actually say it's more than that when it suits you (like to claim OH the poor abuse victims won't be able to speak out). This is just spewing bullshit talking points that Amber Heard's team wants you to believe, when they know it's not possible.

ChaosTonyV4 posted...

Also re-reading the first topic made me realize when I actually decided this shit was crazy.

I said, Wow, there are people on both sides treating a case involving domestic abuse like a spectator sport, this is weird.

And Biscuit replied Tony I hope you never have to deal with being a victim of domestic abuse.

Literally implying that because the way people were drawing legitimate entertainment from it weirded me out, I must not care about domestic abuse.

I was blindsided by how genuinely insane that is.

Yes, Tony. Because you were making light of people actually caring about this. People who are ACTUALLY victims of abuse treating this like a big deal and wanting one side to win because it's the honest one, and wanting the actually abused person to get justice. Like if you can't understand that, stop pelting your trash from the cheap seats to take shots at the people invested in this. Because I promise you, if you were a victim of abuse then you would care a hell of a lot more and wouldn't be going "lol wow people sure do care way too much about this" and throwing your shit from the cheap seats and then pretending to give a fuck only when people call you out.

PrivateBiscuit1 posted...

literally none of these posts you posted said they believed it what are you doing

lol got it, you want to act stupid like those posts werent entertaining the possibility.

This is the fearmongering talking points that dopey people who don't understand the legal system want you to believe and bad faith actors. You're acting chickenshit because you're refusing to touch the actual crux of the argument and you just go "Oh, it's just about some woman who lost a court case" when you know it's a lot more than that, and only actually say it's more than that when it suits you (like to claim OH the poor abuse victims won't be able to speak out). This is just spewing bullshit talking points that Amber Heard's team wants you to believe, when they know it's not possible.

lol yeah ok dude, its all a conspiracy by Heards lawyers, you got it.

Also you dont seem willing to touch the crux of the argument? I very specifically am saying the opposite of oh just some woman who lost a court case. I said Heard is just some woman while everything around it has massive implicationsthats my argument.

edit: in an attempt to snap you out of this reflex you have and respond logically and honestly, let me state I think Amber writing that article with the ACLUs help and attempting to make the fight against domestic violence about herself was fucking stupid, awful, and will hurt victims of abuseparticularly women.

Yes, Tony. Because you were making light of people actually caring about this. People who are ACTUALLY victims of abuse treating this like a big deal and wanting one side to win because it's the honest one, and wanting the actually abused person to get justice. Like if you can't understand that, stop pelting your trash from the cheap seats to take shots at the people invested in this. Because I promise you, if you were a victim of abuse then you would care a hell of a lot more and wouldn't be going "lol wow people sure do care way too much about this" and throwing your shit from the cheap seats and then pretending to give a fuck only when people call you out.

Nah dude, just like Rittenhouse, you seem genuinely incapable of taking big picture criticisms of situations as anything but direct attacks.

Im not talking about people CARING about the case, and I suspect you actually know that.

Im talking about the people watching court cases and being like I love this shit, I hope it doesnt end and I cant wait to cheer for my team! Im talking about people from Day 1, hell, before Day 1 of the case sharing memes about domestic abuse. About sex toy makers creating limited edition dildos of liquor bottles.

You know, objectively heinous shit that very specifically does not help victims of domestic violence. Considered that, or are you gonna make another sweeping statement that literally only sunshine and rainbows are possible?

ChaosTonyV4 posted...

There are two more posts going Well it IS suspicious. Motherfucker if no one was open to the possibility they would have said so, we had 5 wishy-washy posters literally entertaining the idea, no one was willing to commit because it IS a fucking insane thing, but more people considered it than not. (Ironically you WERE the most against it, which is probably why youre misremembering, you pointed out she seems to just blows her nose weird.)

The only reason people even remotely "entertained" the idea was because she had been doing crazy shit all trial. She was literally caught on camera pretending to take notes with her pen not even touching the paper, then turning to show and discuss her non-existent notes with her team.

Nobody actually thought there was any chance in hell she actually did it. Those posts were nothing more than amused "Look, obviously not, but she's been acting like a lunatic all trial, so this just looks hilarious." But then you became absolutely obsessed with people for even being amused by the idea.

What a weird hill to die on, especially when paired with "Celebrity gossip Youtuber making money off videos about Heard SOOOO WEEEEEEEIRD!"

ChaosTonyV4 posted...

lol got it, you want to act stupid like those posts werent entertaining the possibility.

okay tony

ChaosTonyV4 posted...

lol yeah ok dude, its all a conspiracy by Heards lawyers, you got it.

Also you dont seem willing to touch the crux of the argument? I very specifically am saying the opposite of oh just some woman who lost a court case. I said Heard is just some woman while everything around it has massive implicationsthats my argument.

edit: in an attempt to snap you out of this reflex you have and respond logically and honestly, let me state I think Amber writing that article with the ACLUs help and attempting to make the fight against domestic violence about herself was fucking stupid, awful, and will hurt victims of abuseparticularly women.

Are you insane? That is LITERALLY WHAT THEY ARE SAYING. You are saying the same things her and her team are saying. You very specifically DID say "Some woman lost a court case" to try and make it seem like it was less of a big deal than it was to drive home this dumb narrative of "No woman will ever speak out now!"

ChaosTonyV4 posted...

Nah dude, just like Rittenhouse, you seem genuinely incapable of taking big picture criticisms of situations as anything but direct attacks.

Im not talking about people CARING about the case, and I suspect you actually know that.

Im talking about the people watching court cases and being like I love this shit, I hope it doesnt end and I cant wait to cheer for my team! Im talking about people from Day 1, hell, before Day 1 of the case sharing memes about domestic abuse. About sex toy makers creating limited edition dildos of liquor bottles.

You know, objectively heinous shit that very specifically does not help victims of domestic violence. Considered that, or are you gonna make another sweeping statement that literally only sunshine and rainbows are possible?

You mean when you kept coming at me with Rittenhouse stuff when you very clearly didn't know about any of the facts of the case and I had to continually correct you? Yeah, I should have taken that criticism from the guy who took information from such reliable news sources that claimed he only shot and killed black people and fired 60 rounds into a crowd or any other place you got your very incorrect and bias information from. And while I was keeping people informed you were going "I don't think we should be getting a truthful summary of anything anymore. It seems unnecessary" when it's easy to ignore if you didn't want to see it.

But Christ alive who cares about Rittenhouse stuff anymore. It's been over.

And news flash Tony: Shitty people will do and say shitty things about literally every situation. There will always be bad faith actors in every situation. That's just how it is on the vast world of the internet, but you're just coming around in a topic where people are discussing the thing and going "Wowee people sure do care too much about this like it's a sports team" with no further context. People are impassioned about something like this because it hits close to a lot of people. Don't come into a topic where people DO care about it and make a sweeping statement like this and expect anyone to assume you mean anything but any of the people who are in said topic and do care.

ExThaNemesis posted...

Actual victims of abuse should be furious about this, but more-so that Amber Heard used their good faith movement to destroy a man's career/life and got caught out on it.

She didn't singlehandedly destroy Depp's career. Depp himself destroyed it through his behavior on movie sets and being in so many high-profile flops like Dark Shadows and The Lone Ranger (gee, how's that Armie Hammer fellow doing?).

Anyway, good to see Heard is a Donald Trump-level bad sport. Slightly amusing to see how both genders are equally capable of this crap considering how many use these behaviors to slam the opposite sex.

ChaosTonyV4 posted...

its all a conspiracy by Heards lawyers

It's all *gaslighting by Heard's lawyers. And you're falling for it, or deciding to spread it because why the hell not. What are facts and evidence, right?

LinkMarioSamus posted...

Anyway, good to see Heard is a Donald Trump-level bad sport. Slightly amusing to see how both genders are equally capable of this crap considering how many use these behaviors to slam the opposite sex.

Best take right here. Narcissistic villains taking advantage of others need to be called out no matter the gender or socio political narrative they grift with.

LinkMarioSamus posted...

She didn't singlehandedly destroy Depp's career. Depp himself destroyed it through his behavior on movie sets and being in so many high-profile flops like Dark Shadows and The Lone Ranger.

You're really running with this take and feeling good about it huh

ChaosTonyV4 posted...

so and so abused me, they are going to lose if he they cant prove it

If they go out of their way to:
1) provide evidence and narratives that can't be verified
2) take very little to no accountability for unusual behavior and actions raised
3) downplay their own abusive behavior and malice

then yeah, I'd say they'd have a pretty hard time convincing others that they are victims of dv/sv. Again this was a case of someone caught weaponizing the plight of others for their own self aggrandizement. It's not a devastating blow for real victims seeking justice that you claim, that's just insulting to even insinuate.

Leonhart4 posted...

You're really running with this take and feeling good about it huh

It's simple: Hollywood will forgive anything and anyone until they stop bringing in money and/or is outed by many as a monster. And typically it has to be both. Mostly just hate the whole idea of cancel culture though.

Well yes, but he lost lucrative roles because of Heard's accusations. To act like nobody wanted him before that because he had a few box office flops (as most big actors do) is disingenuous.

PrivateBiscuit1 posted...

Are you insane? That is LITERALLY WHAT THEY ARE SAYING. You are saying the same things her and her team are saying. You very specifically DID say "Some woman lost a court case" to try and make it seem like it was less of a big deal than it was to drive home this dumb narrative of "No woman will ever speak out now!"

lol ok biscuit.

I literally just explained the difference.

You mean when you kept coming at me with Rittenhouse stuff when you very clearly didn't know about any of the facts of the case and I had to continually correct you? Yeah, I should have taken that criticism from the guy who took information from such reliable news sources that claimed he only shot and killed black people and fired 60 rounds into a crowd or any other place you got your very incorrect and bias information from. And while I was keeping people informed you were going "I don't think we should be getting a truthful summary of anything anymore. It seems unnecessary" when it's easy to ignore if you didn't want to see it.

But Christ alive who cares about Rittenhouse stuff anymore. It's been over.

And news flash Tony: Shitty people will do and say shitty things about literally every situation. There will always be bad faith actors in every situation. That's just how it is on the vast world of the internet, but you're just coming around in a topic where people are discussing the thing and going "Wowee people sure do care too much about this like it's a sports team" with no further context. People are impassioned about something like this because it hits close to a lot of people. Don't come into a topic where people DO care about it and make a sweeping statement like this and expect anyone to assume you mean anything but any of the people who are in said topic and do care.

Proving my point that youre not even reading the argument dude! The arguments people were making against you in the Rittenhouse case were moral ones. People would say what he did was wrong and shouldnt be supported (because of future people doing the same thing which may have been LEGALLY right, but morally/logically is bad) or say you were sucking his dick too hard and youd go the evidence is that this poor innocent kid is a saint and has no implications for anything else!

Im saying that the misogyny around Amber Heard is wrong and youre saying the evidence is that Amber is the devil and has no implications for anything else!

The fact you cant even consider it and then someone posts this:

Nok_Su_Kow posted...

If they go out of their way to:
1) provide evidence and narratives that can't be verified
2) take very little to no accountability for unusual behavior and actions raised
3) downplay their own abusive behavior and malice

then yeah, I'd say they'd have a pretty hard time convincing others that they are victims of dv/sv. Again this was a case of someone caught weaponizing the plight of others for their own self aggrandizement. It's not a devastating blow for real victims seeking justice that you claim, that's just insulting to even insinuate.

This person is literally saying yes, exactly what you said is possible. Her self-aggrandizing wasnt the question, it was whether she defamed him by calling herself a victim of abuse without having proof.

Biscuit I swear to god, just say ok Tony if youre going to ignore the argument again, because Im tired of repeating myself.

Leonhart4 posted...

Well yes, but he lost lucrative roles because of Heard's accusations. To act like nobody wanted him before that because he had a few box office flops (as most big actors do) is disingenuous.

He didn't lose them ENTIRELY because of Heard's accusations. And it's not a "few" box office flops, he hasn't had a major financial success since the 2010 Alice in Wonderland. Even his box-office successes like Pirates 5 and Fantastic Beasts 2 were deemed domestic underperformers that needed foreign grosses to be profitable. There are lots of people within the entertainment industry in general who have been accused of far worse yet suffered little career repercussions for it.

ChaosTonyV4 posted...

Her self-aggrandizing wasnt the question, it was whether she defamed him by calling herself a victim of abuse without having proof.

They go hand in hand my guy. Same with her trading charity lies for clout. She was believed less for proving her true character to the jury which sealed the defamation verdict. So no, she isn't the poster child of victims not coming forward as you claim.

Nok_Su_Kow posted...

They go hand in hand my guy. Same with her trading charity lies for clout. She was believed less for proving her true character to the jury which sealed the defamation verdict. So no, she isn't the poster child of victims not coming forward as you claim.

lol I am not saying this. You people are so twisted up in hating her you think criticizing the culture around it is deifying her or something.

By your own logic, if a woman says I am a victim of domestic violence, and people respond negatively towards her ex enough to cause any verifiable damages, he can sue her.

This isnt gaslighting from Heards lawyers, its literally logic.

ChaosTonyV4 posted...

theres good reason to be worried about other victims of abuse who are probably going to get sued and will become the next spectator sport or whatever, our culture is not healthy, my dudes.

Concern about them getting sued and team AH propagating that future victims are now afraid of coming forward without proof. You really should work for AH with your talking points here.

ChaosTonyV4 posted...

cause any verifiable damages, he can sue her.

Can he prove it, is he willing to? Maybe he really is an abuser, let's hear her story and decide then. And yes your fears based on the culture surrounding the backlash towards this narcissistic individual is totally unfounded and akin to gaslighting.

ChaosTonyV4 posted...

This isnt gaslighting from Heards lawyers, its literally logic.

It's slippery slope at best. It literally has the same amount of logic and proof behind it as people who claimed gay marriage would lead to people marrying dogs and toasters.

ChaosTonyV4 posted...

a woman says I am a victim of domestic violence, and people respond negatively towards her ex enough to cause any verifiable damages, he can sue her.

I don't see the problem with that if he didn't abuse her though?

Like, coming forward about abuse and it being a lie as it was in the case of Heard is damaging to someone's reputation even if it is ultimately proven to be a lie. And people who use it as a way to try and exert power over another (Heard basically says that no one will believe Johnny in an abuse case in a recording, so that's exactly what she's doing) SHOULD be held accountable.

Like your concern here seems to be that of a slippery slope-- because this crazy situation emerged where a woman was clearly lying and was targeting a person who could very credibly claim damages, all women should become afraid of this becoming the case for a legitimate abuse case? I don't think that is what will happen. You've got a lot more incidents where speaking up works-- having one counter example (caused by the allegations of abuse being clearly fabricated or at the best case grossly exaggerated) is not going to ruin everything.

There's also the fact that most people who claim abuse, valid or otherwise, couldn't even easily come close to the bar required for defamation because they're not giving interviews to major publications or calling up TMZ.

Yeah, defamation is very difficult to prove. Depp winning this case will likely continue to be the exception, not the rule, because the circumstances are extraordinary.

Also, requests for restraining orders are court filings and are covered by litigation privilege. If you want a court to review abuse allegations, you can do so without risking defamation.

Yeah, if we want to apply the slippery slope fallacy to crimes, we shouldn't convict anyone of anything, ever

It's why laws always have vague phrasing like "reasonable person" or "undue", and why we have juries at all

I've explained it multiple times before, but the folk here are absolutely correct. There is no danger of actual abuse victims coming out about their abuse being sued. Any attempts would need tangible evidence of falsehood from the abuser to prove it's false. You can't just say "I never hit her, I promise" and it goes straight to a court trial. It gets thrown out immediately. Depp had a hell of a lot proving that Amber was lying from statements she made over the past 6 years, and tons of photo evidence after alleged abuse. Like she was in a court trial in the UK and had to detail these major incidents of abuse before Depp had enough to actually sue her.

As an example, before the Depp Trial, there was a noted sex pest and abuser in professional wrestling who tried to sue everyone who came out about him during a MeToo deal in that industry, and literally every case was dismissed or dropped. And he had actual damages of being completely removed from the industry. This is the reality of what happens in defamation cases.

Don't make up the most outlandish tales of being abused and you will stay out of court. It's that basic. It's just a fearmongering and lack of understanding of the law to think women are in danger of being sued for coming out about their abusers, and it's playing directly into what Amber and her team want you to believe.

Its the fact that you think these things are rigid and never subject to interpretation that makes arguing this pointless. There are plenty of lawyers saying it too, but clearly the best position is to not consider the possibility lol.

I guess were done here.

You're not "considering the possibility", you're outright arguing it will be the norm.

Also real big Trump energy when your defense is "plenty of ___ are saying it" without a damn thing to back that up.

The lawyers you're talking about are people like Lisa Bloom who posted this:

https://twitter.com/LisaBloom/status/1532837189033156608?s=20&t=1fBGYY2R0T1sGw-Wg3fW6w

And also auditioned to defend Harvey Weinstein in his court case and detailed how she would defame his accusers.

AKA you're talking about legal grifters who are just chasing the money with no morality.

PrivateBiscuit1 posted...

The lawyers you're talking about are people like Lisa Bloom who posted this:

https://twitter.com/LisaBloom/status/1532837189033156608?s=20&t=1fBGYY2R0T1sGw-Wg3fW6w

And also auditioned to defend Harvey Weinstein in his court case and detailed how she would defame his accusers.

AKA you're talking about legal grifters who are just chasing the money with no morality.

I mean if she was advising her clients before this case that they could make public accusations with no risk of a lawsuit, which I very much doubt she was doing, that was bad advice. This was a trial court decision; no legal precedents were set. The jury applied existing precedent to the evidence presented.

kevwaffles posted...

You're not "considering the possibility", you're outright arguing it will be the norm.

Also real big Trump energy when your defense is "plenty of ___ are saying it" without a damn thing to back that up.

Take a look at the #IStandWithMarilynManson hashtag if you feel like seeing not just people call Rachel Evan Wood a whore and a liar, but gleefully celebrate women in general getting their comeuppance.

Also I was responding to its a lack of understanding of the law, remark. Lawyers and juries disagree on the law all the time, if you say everything is cut and dry and *so and so* can or would never happen when we can literally see disagreement from law experts with our own eyes, you are just being biased.

It's a unique scenario of Depp needing to prove defemation without a reasonable doubt and AH going the other extreme of proving how little credibility she has to make such defaming accusations to begin with. You would be hard pressed to find a similar verdict years ago today and in the future, because of the circumstances. So again, no there is no precedent set here for victims of dv/sv.

"Plenty of lawyers". Who are these lawyers?

red sox 777 posted...

I mean if she was advising her clients before this case that they could make public accusations with no risk of a lawsuit, which I very much doubt she was doing, that was bad advice. This was a trial court decision; no legal precedents were set. The jury applied existing precedent to the evidence presented.

You got it in one. Let's look at another so called legal professional trying to fearmonger.

https://twitter.com/mldauber/status/1532374892879917060?s=20&t=1fBGYY2R0T1sGw-Wg3fW6w
https://twitter.com/mldauber/status/1532377393553215489?s=20&t=1fBGYY2R0T1sGw-Wg3fW6w

And in another tweet calling Depp's lawyer a "pick me girl". Stanford Law Professor, btw, teaching women.

These people are not to be taken seriously.

A civil jury trial doesnt set a legal precedent a judge can cite, but it does set a precedent for future juries (non-legal experts by design), and youre just being naive if you think otherwise.

Oh, and concerning the Marilyn Manson case, there's actually a lot of legitimate concern that one is also a false allegation as well. I haven't looked into it much, but folks I trust that have looked into it seem skeptical of the validity.

If I find a good source or video on it, I'll link it here.

Oh, I'm sure accused abusers will try to sue their accusers off of the back of this case. It doesn't mean they're likely to succeed. This case was not precedent setting.

If Camille was such a person I think the legal world would benefit from more like her. But maybe I'm just being biased to people who smell BS and let the other person know, hey that's BS there and it keeps leaking from your mouth and we all see it.

I mean SLAPP lawsuits occurred before this trial. I don't know if they'll get any better or worse because of this.

Leonhart4 posted...

Oh, I'm sure accused abusers will try to sue their accusers off of the back of this case. It doesn't mean they're likely to succeed. This case was not precedent setting.

That's the thing. I highly suspect this was already happening, and any uptick this case causes will be short lived at best because it is so far removed from any "typical" abuse cases.

ChaosTonyV4 posted...

Take a look at the #IStandWithMarilynManson hashtag if you feel like seeing not just people call Rachel Evan Wood a whore and a liar, but gleefully celebrate women in general getting their comeuppance.

Also I was responding to its a lack of understanding of the law, remark. Lawyers and juries disagree on the law all the time, if you say everything is cut and dry and *so and so* can or would never happen when we can literally see disagreement from law experts with our own eyes, you are just being biased.

I don't think you understand how social media factored into this trial. Depp's team didn't bring it up first. Heard's team tried to use it support their counter-claim of defamation (despite the fact that it makes no sense unless Depp controls social media) because they had so little to go on and got eviscerated for it.

There are always going to be people who pick a side not because they truly think that instance is right or wrong but because it suits their overall narrative. Some of these are people shaping their own narrative. Others are sheep who just believe what people they like tell them without thinking. The guilt or innocence of individuals like Depp, Heard, Manson, or Rachel Evans is irrelevant to them. And quite frankly you've shown me nothing to indicate you don't fit into one of these categories just as much as the people you're rallying against.

ChaosTonyV4 posted...

Also I was responding to its a lack of understanding of the law, remark. Lawyers and juries disagree on the law all the time, if you say everything is cut and dry and *so and so* can or would never happen when we can literally see disagreement from law experts with our own eyes, you are just being biased.

Yes, lawyers arguing law is certainly what their profession is all about. Well done. It's important, like always, to look at the quality of argument and credibility of these lawyers too.

However, the jury is given specific jury instructions telling you exactly what the law is and helping you understand how to apply it, and any failing of the jury to not understand that is a failure from both parties' attorneys.

Hence it goes right back to the "lack of understanding" part. Which also includes "the jury will come in with biases!" when shocker of all shockers, they always do. If not about something like this, then something else about a case. That's why jury selection is a thing to eliminate biased jurors for all aspects of the case.

Anyone who's saying nasty things about Camille is pro-abuse and anti-women. Camille did great things for women in law. She showed that, with confidence and motivation, women can do anything. I do hope that abuser loses her job because she's taking the side of a proven abuser over someone whose accomplishments would make people take her (the abuser) more seriously. I would not want to "learn" from someone like that.

Seriously, how can you say that abuse victims can be sued for speaking out? An abuse victim sued his abuser and won. This verdict is saying that abuse victims can sue their abusers!

I don't get why some people don't see that and I can't take them seriously. It would've helped them to actually watch the trial.

PrivateBiscuit1 posted...

Yes, lawyers arguing law is certainly what their profession is all about. Well done. It's important, like always, to look at the quality of argument and credibility of these lawyers too.

However, the jury is given specific jury instructions telling you exactly what the law is and helping you understand how to apply it, and any failing of the jury to not understand that is a failure from both parties' attorneys.

Hence it goes right back to the "lack of understanding" part. Which also includes "the jury will come in with biases!" when shocker of all shockers, they always do. If not about something like this, then something else about a case. That's why jury selection is a thing to eliminate biased jurors for all aspects of the case.

I mean LegalEagle himself said the Jurys verdict is lol-worthy.

https://twitter.com/legaleagle/status/1532084789158854664?s=21&t=S8vVvCXrBT0eDQLDvZDw0A

https://youtu.be/HMeaBvJI5_w

If youre gonna take the position of Theres no reason to fear because juries dont get it wrong, then we are living in two different societies, lol.

And the second take of If the jury gets it wrong, its the lawyers fault, doesnt really refute the idea that thats bad.

kevwaffles posted...

And quite frankly you've shown me nothing to indicate you don't fit into one of these categories just as much as the people you're rallying against.

lol I know you hate me but youve gotta try harder than this.

Legal Eagle is the laughingstock of every single other Law YouTuber. He's frequently wrong and hilariously biased.