In order to participate in the GunBroker Member forums, you must be logged in with your GunBroker.com account. Click the sign-in button at the top right of the forums page to get connected.
quote:Originally posted by select-fire
quote:Originally posted by skicat
Wow. You guys will make up whatever suits you and defend it shamelessly. Now you would have us believe all the jurors were incompetent and all because you have some emotional investment in Kyle that is too painful to give up. Kyle had the opportunity to man up before he died and didn't. Therefore he is a dishonest. By not clearing this up before he died he passed this burden on to his wife. Kyle could have retracted his statement when this first came to light and it would have been over but then he wouldn't have gotten all that free publicity and the extra book sales which followed.
I'm sorry Kyle is dead. I'm sorry he lied. I'm sorry you guys are ready to accept a lie as truth rather than burst your hero bubble. Sad.
+1. And who would have believed in the first place that Kyle could have knocked Ventura down. Ventura would have broke him in half like a pretzel. Mess with the bull you get the horn.
Once again, the Obama idiot mindset makes it's presence known on the GD forum. Nothing will change their minds, Nunn said that. How can you reason with a static mind? You can't.
Very sore losers on this forum. Very sore. Sad they cannot accept that a jury decided the fate of the lawsuit. Not one person.. a whole jury. I pray that the folks on here that don't trust the jury or their decisions or make up fantasy island excuses never.. repeat never sit on a jury. It is what it is.. Ventura won and the Liar lost. Got it. I don't care if you don't like the outcome or Ventura. He is laughing all the way to the bank and got his name cleared. I am pleased he won. And sorry folks... the majority decision on here makes no difference in the case... NONE...Deal with it..
quote:Originally posted by skicat
Wow. You guys will make up whatever suits you and defend it shamelessly. Now you would have us believe all the jurors were incompetent and all because you have some emotional investment in Kyle that is too painful to give up. Kyle had the opportunity to man up before he died and didn't. Therefore he is a dishonest. By not clearing this up before he died he passed this burden on to his wife. Kyle could have retracted his statement when this first came to light and it would have been over but then he wouldn't have gotten all that free publicity and the extra book sales which followed.
I'm sorry Kyle is dead. I'm sorry he lied. I'm sorry you guys are ready to accept a lie as truth rather than burst your hero bubble. Sad.
LOL!
I have absolutely no "emotional investment" in Kyle. In fact, I think it is pretty pathetic that he tried to make money off his military activity. I don't see killing in war as something one should be "proud" of. War is a dirty job; I appreciate those who do it, but respect the "quiet hero" who makes a name and reputation for himself outside of the actions he took during war.
Specific to the jurors: "incompetence" is not an uncommon situation. Defamation is a fairly complex issue -- particularly so when it involves a public figure who is claiming to be the victim.
So far, I have only said "probably" when it comes to issues of "understanding" of the case by jurors. If any of them are willing to do post-trial interviews, it will be interesting to see what they say, but I expect, if they explain their thinking, they will be "hung up" on the question about whether or not what Kyle said "was a lie" -- in a public figure defamation case, that is commonly not the primary question the jurors need to be looking at.
As I said before, people can make up lies about a public figure, and the public figure won't have grounds for a defamation suit unless he can prove actual damages. A general "decline in income" can be attributed to many other factors. I haven't heard how Ventura "proved" Kyles caused him damages.
quote:Originally posted by competentone
quote:Originally posted by p3skyking
quote:Originally posted by competentone
quote:Originally posted by p3skyking
Are some of you intellectually dishonest or do you normally support a liar?
It appears some hold a grudge against Ventura out of proportion of this suit. If that's the case, be honest about with at least yourself.
The man proved his case and was vindicated. Simple as that.
It is more likely the jury was kind-of dumb. They probably didn't understand the instruction they were given about defamation -- particularly as it relates to "public figures" (Ventura is one of them).
Venture should have had to demonstrate exactly how he was damaged financially by "the defamation" to win the suit -- maybe he did that by bringing in Alex Jones and Jones testified that space aliens were about to offer Ventura a $1.8 million book deal, but that fell through after they read about how he had "bad mouthed" Bush and the U.S..
Ventura has already damaged his reputation (for having any sanity) by promoting the absolutely "whacked" crowd associated with the likes of Alex Jones.
Kyle's story, even if it was untrue, couldn't do anything worse to Ventura's reputation than what Ventura has already done to himself.
Wrong. It's more like a little fib snowballed and a man had the option of making it right or telling a bigger lie. He chose the latter.
I'm pretty disgusted that petty minds can't separate personal animosity from justice, particulary people that are or were in positions of authority. Perhaps lying is a coin with which they are comfortable in dealing.
A person is either honest, or they're something lessor.
The witnesses were heard over a six day period and the jurors sifted to find the truth. Something convinced them Ventura had the stronger truth. That's no lie.
You're not understanding defamation and public figures (the same as the jury probably didn't understand it).
People can tell lies about public figures and the public figures cannot do anything about it, unless certain (very difficult) conditions are met -- particularly, the public figure has to prove how he was harmed financially from the lie.
I doubt Ventura was able to demonstrate how he was "damaged" by Kyle's statements.
The jury probably didn't understand the instructions they were given; Venture "won the jack-pot" based on jury ineptitude, not because he's "really been damaged by Kyle's comments."
I think you may be a bit off base here. Even a public figure has some protections, although they are less strong than those for a regular Joe. You can't with actual malice or reckless disregard for the truth just make up flat-out lies about public figures.
If I sit down and say, "Boy I really hate that Rosie O'Donnell and I want to do her wrong, and I'm just going to make something up about her, say that she killed 17 people while drunk driving and I'm going to publish it in a book" Rosie can sue me and she can win.
quote:Originally posted by mlincoln
quote:Originally posted by competentone
quote:Originally posted by p3skyking
quote:Originally posted by competentone
quote:Originally posted by p3skyking
Are some of you intellectually dishonest or do you normally support a liar?
It appears some hold a grudge against Ventura out of proportion of this suit. If that's the case, be honest about with at least yourself.
The man proved his case and was vindicated. Simple as that.
It is more likely the jury was kind-of dumb. They probably didn't understand the instruction they were given about defamation -- particularly as it relates to "public figures" (Ventura is one of them).
Venture should have had to demonstrate exactly how he was damaged financially by "the defamation" to win the suit -- maybe he did that by bringing in Alex Jones and Jones testified that space aliens were about to offer Ventura a $1.8 million book deal, but that fell through after they read about how he had "bad mouthed" Bush and the U.S..
Ventura has already damaged his reputation (for having any sanity) by promoting the absolutely "whacked" crowd associated with the likes of Alex Jones.
Kyle's story, even if it was untrue, couldn't do anything worse to Ventura's reputation than what Ventura has already done to himself.
Wrong. It's more like a little fib snowballed and a man had the option of making it right or telling a bigger lie. He chose the latter.
I'm pretty disgusted that petty minds can't separate personal animosity from justice, particulary people that are or were in positions of authority. Perhaps lying is a coin with which they are comfortable in dealing.
A person is either honest, or they're something lessor.
The witnesses were heard over a six day period and the jurors sifted to find the truth. Something convinced them Ventura had the stronger truth. That's no lie.
You're not understanding defamation and public figures (the same as the jury probably didn't understand it).
People can tell lies about public figures and the public figures cannot do anything about it, unless certain (very difficult) conditions are met -- particularly, the public figure has to prove how he was harmed financially from the lie.
I doubt Ventura was able to demonstrate how he was "damaged" by Kyle's statements.
The jury probably didn't understand the instructions they were given; Venture "won the jack-pot" based on jury ineptitude, not because he's "really been damaged by Kyle's comments."
I think you may be a bit off base here. Even a public figure has some protections, although they are less strong than those for a regular Joe. You can't with actual malice or reckless disregard for the truth just make up flat-out lies about public figures.
If I sit down and say, "Boy I really hate that Rosie O'Donnell and I want to do her wrong, and I'm just going to make something up about her, say that she killed 17 people while drunk driving and I'm going to publish it in a book" Rosie can sue me and she can win.
Nope. She'd have to demonstrate that she was damaged by your accusations before she could win (if the jury understood their instructions). Essentially, she'd have to show that some people believed your lie and changed their actions, causing her financial harm, because of it.
"President Obama had killed 6 secret lovers and buried them in the White House rose garden." is a defamatory statement, but Obama won't win a lawsuit against me for saying it -- even if he can prove it is a lie. He'd have to show how my statement has damaged him before he would win a suit.
quote:Originally posted by skicat
Wow. You guys will make up whatever suits you and defend it shamelessly. Now you would have us believe all the jurors were incompetent and all because you have some emotional investment in Kyle that is too painful to give up. Kyle had the opportunity to man up before he died and didn't. Therefore he is a dishonest. By not clearing this up before he died he passed this burden on to his wife. Kyle could have retracted his statement when this first came to light and it would have been over but then he wouldn't have gotten all that free publicity and the extra book sales which followed.
I'm sorry Kyle is dead. I'm sorry he lied. I'm sorry you guys are ready to accept a lie as truth rather than burst your hero bubble. Sad.
You address this to "You guys" but I can only speak for myself. I simply consider what I know about the people involved and decide which is the most credible, the situation and which is the most plausible and decide which one I believe.
All I know about Kyle is he was a Navy SEAL sniper who was credited with a lot of confirmed kills. He wrote a book. He got murdered in Texas by a man he was trying to help.
All I know about Ventura is his name is James George Janos. He was a member of Navy UDT (Underwater Demolition Teams) who led people to believe he was a member of Navy SEALs without ever actually making that statement. He also led people to believe he was a combat veteran without ever actually making that statement. He was a professional wrestler where dishonesty was part of the job, proving he is willing to lie for a dollar. He was a professional politician. Enough said about that profession. He is or was the host of the Conspiracy Theory TV show. He either belies what he claims on that show proving he is insane or he doesn't believe it proving yet again he is willing to lie for a dollar. In other words he is a showman in search of a show.
I am familiar with barrooms where people, even former sailors, sometimes allow their mouth to overload their *. I find it quite plausible that Mister Janos put his mouth in gear and for whatever reason failed to back it up.
If I have to pick which one to believe, the preponderance of the evidence goes with Kyle on this one.
The jury said Ventura proved his case. That's good enough for me, just like the O. J. murder trial. I'm not required to agree with it and it didn't cost me anything.
quote:Originally posted by JamesRK
quote:Originally posted by skicat
Wow. You guys will make up whatever suits you and defend it shamelessly. Now you would have us believe all the jurors were incompetent and all because you have some emotional investment in Kyle that is too painful to give up. Kyle had the opportunity to man up before he died and didn't. Therefore he is a dishonest. By not clearing this up before he died he passed this burden on to his wife. Kyle could have retracted his statement when this first came to light and it would have been over but then he wouldn't have gotten all that free publicity and the extra book sales which followed.
I'm sorry Kyle is dead. I'm sorry he lied. I'm sorry you guys are ready to accept a lie as truth rather than burst your hero bubble. Sad.
You address this to "You guys" but I can only speak for myself. I simply consider what I know about the people involved and decide which is the most credible, the situation and which is the most plausible and decide which one I believe.
All I know about Kyle is he was a Navy SEAL sniper who was credited with a lot of confirmed kills. He wrote a book. He got murdered in Texas by a man he was trying to help.
All I know about Ventura is his name is James George Janos. He was a member of Navy UDT (Underwater Demolition Teams) who led people to believe he was a member of Navy SEALs without ever actually making that statement. He also led people to believe he was a combat veteran without ever actually making that statement. He was a professional wrestler where dishonesty was part of the job, proving he is willing to lie for a dollar. He was a professional politician. Enough said about that profession. He is or was the host of the Conspiracy Theory TV show. He either belies what he claims on that show proving he is insane or he doesn't believe it proving yet again he is willing to lie for a dollar. In other words he is a showman in search of a show.
I am familiar with barrooms where people, even former sailors, sometimes allow their mouth to overload their *. I find it quite plausible that Mister Janos put his mouth in gear and for whatever reason failed to back it up.
If I have to pick which one to believe, the preponderance of the evidence goes with Kyle on this one.
The jury said Ventura proved his case. That's good enough for me, just like the O. J. murder trial. I'm not required to agree with it and it didn't cost me anything.
I figured those I was talking about would know who I meant and to clarify further you were not in my thoughts as I wrote this James.
I do find it interesting that when someone has a bias then anything can be spun to be a negative. An example is your reference to him being dishonest because he was a wrestler. You might as well brand every actor who played a part in any production a liar. To think of all those children in school plays wearing false beards and stovepipe hats pretending to be Abraham Lincoln. What scandal! Training our youth to be so deceitful.
The reason I and many others voted Ventura in as Governor of MN was that in every interview,speech, appearance he was consistently himself. He never gave a scripted political non-answer like every other trained political hack we have been cursed with.
Sometimes what he said was stupid and poorly thought out. Many of the times I disagreed with his ideas. I still voted for him because he always spoke his mind and I knew where he stood. That had value to me. I respected his courage to give public answers which were his own and subject to critique and ridicule as opposed to giving the safe political noncommittal responses we get from everyone these days. Considering he had no support from either party while he was Governor, and the media kept focus off his ideas and goals preferring to sink to tabloid level coverage, he did no worse than any other of our Governors.
So what I know about the man is that he served in uniform,he had a career as an entertainer both wrestling and films, he worked in local govt as mayor of a town near me,he was a mediocre color commentator and radio show host, he became the highest level politician to ever win on a reform ticket and became Governor of MN, he authored some books and created his own TV series. If nothing else you have to admire his work ethic.
I have heard him criticize the govt and speak against the various uses our military has been tasked with, but he has consistently supported military personnel and their families.
Turn this thing around for a minute and lets say that instead of Kyle defaming Ventura say it was Piers Morgan who defamed Ventura. I'd wager a whole lot of you would switch sides to back Ventura the serviceman and former Governor of MN.
I also wonder how many of you would stop trying to clear your name if you were labelled a pedophile simply because the one making the accusation had died. I know the answer already. None of you would quietly accept that label.
For those of you who think this was just about money grubbing, you are forgetting that Ventura offered them an out right at the beginning and they refused. They made their bed and now they get to lay in it.
quote:Originally posted by JamesRK
quote:Originally posted by skicat
Wow. You guys will make up whatever suits you and defend it shamelessly. Now you would have us believe all the jurors were incompetent and all because you have some emotional investment in Kyle that is too painful to give up. Kyle had the opportunity to man up before he died and didn't. Therefore he is a dishonest. By not clearing this up before he died he passed this burden on to his wife. Kyle could have retracted his statement when this first came to light and it would have been over but then he wouldn't have gotten all that free publicity and the extra book sales which followed.
I'm sorry Kyle is dead. I'm sorry he lied. I'm sorry you guys are ready to accept a lie as truth rather than burst your hero bubble. Sad.
You address this to "You guys" but I can only speak for myself. I simply consider what I know about the people involved and decide which is the most credible, the situation and which is the most plausible and decide which one I believe.
All I know about Kyle is he was a Navy SEAL sniper who was credited with a lot of confirmed kills. He wrote a book. He got murdered in Texas by a man he was trying to help.
All I know about Ventura is his name is James George Janos. He was a member of Navy UDT (Underwater Demolition Teams) who led people to believe he was a member of Navy SEALs without ever actually making that statement. He also led people to believe he was a combat veteran without ever actually making that statement. He was a professional wrestler where dishonesty was part of the job, proving he is willing to lie for a dollar. He was a professional politician. Enough said about that profession. He is or was the host of the Conspiracy Theory TV show. He either belies what he claims on that show proving he is insane or he doesn't believe it proving yet again he is willing to lie for a dollar. In other words he is a showman in search of a show.
I am familiar with barrooms where people, even former sailors, sometimes allow their mouth to overload their *. I find it quite plausible that Mister Janos put his mouth in gear and for whatever reason failed to back it up.
If I have to pick which one to believe, the preponderance of the evidence goes with Kyle on this one.
The jury said Ventura proved his case. That's good enough for me, just like the O. J. murder trial. I'm not required to agree with it and it didn't cost me anything.
James, You know Jesse better than you think...well said...thx
skicat, You are confusing today's professional wrestling with professional wrestling as it was when Jesse The Body Ventura was a professional wrestler.
Today professional wrestling openly admits the wrestlers and their entourages are actors playing roles and following a script. I don't know if they admit winners and losers are chosen before the match, but they do admit if a sporting event happens it's merely a coincidence.
In the days when Jesse The Body Ventura was a professional wrestler it was promoted as a sport. Some local News/Weather/Sports programs even included the results of the matches in the sports report. Any existence of a script was vehemently denied. In the days when Jesse The Body Ventura was a professional wrestler, anybody associated with the "sport" was a liar by default.
Today an argument could be made that professional wrestlers are legitimate actors. Not so in Jesse The Body Ventura's day.
I had forgotten about his movie career. Now that you mention it I do remember he was in a movie where he either killed or got killed by some invisible space alien. I think there was another mental giant former governor in that movie.
I have no doubt the man speaks his mind, especially after a little lubrication of the tongue. I think that's exactly what he was doing when he allegedly made the alleged remarks that allegedly got him an alleged slap. I've heard Ventura is also an expert in the martial art of "I sue".
I think the crowning achievement in his life's body of work is his TV show, Conspiracy Theory. Anybody with doubts about the character of the man should watch a few of the reruns of the show. That show convinced me he is either insane or a liar. I'm not sure which.
quote:Originally posted by competentone
quote:Originally posted by mlincoln
quote:Originally posted by competentone
quote:Originally posted by p3skyking
quote:Originally posted by competentone
quote:Originally posted by p3skyking
Are some of you intellectually dishonest or do you normally support a liar?
It appears some hold a grudge against Ventura out of proportion of this suit. If that's the case, be honest about with at least yourself.
The man proved his case and was vindicated. Simple as that.
It is more likely the jury was kind-of dumb. They probably didn't understand the instruction they were given about defamation -- particularly as it relates to "public figures" (Ventura is one of them).
Venture should have had to demonstrate exactly how he was damaged financially by "the defamation" to win the suit -- maybe he did that by bringing in Alex Jones and Jones testified that space aliens were about to offer Ventura a $1.8 million book deal, but that fell through after they read about how he had "bad mouthed" Bush and the U.S..
Ventura has already damaged his reputation (for having any sanity) by promoting the absolutely "whacked" crowd associated with the likes of Alex Jones.
Kyle's story, even if it was untrue, couldn't do anything worse to Ventura's reputation than what Ventura has already done to himself.
Wrong. It's more like a little fib snowballed and a man had the option of making it right or telling a bigger lie. He chose the latter.
I'm pretty disgusted that petty minds can't separate personal animosity from justice, particulary people that are or were in positions of authority. Perhaps lying is a coin with which they are comfortable in dealing.
A person is either honest, or they're something lessor.
The witnesses were heard over a six day period and the jurors sifted to find the truth. Something convinced them Ventura had the stronger truth. That's no lie.
You're not understanding defamation and public figures (the same as the jury probably didn't understand it).
People can tell lies about public figures and the public figures cannot do anything about it, unless certain (very difficult) conditions are met -- particularly, the public figure has to prove how he was harmed financially from the lie.
I doubt Ventura was able to demonstrate how he was "damaged" by Kyle's statements.
The jury probably didn't understand the instructions they were given; Venture "won the jack-pot" based on jury ineptitude, not because he's "really been damaged by Kyle's comments."
I think you may be a bit off base here. Even a public figure has some protections, although they are less strong than those for a regular Joe. You can't with actual malice or reckless disregard for the truth just make up flat-out lies about public figures.
If I sit down and say, "Boy I really hate that Rosie O'Donnell and I want to do her wrong, and I'm just going to make something up about her, say that she killed 17 people while drunk driving and I'm going to publish it in a book" Rosie can sue me and she can win.
Nope. She'd have to demonstrate that she was damaged by your accusations before she could win (if the jury understood their instructions). Essentially, she'd have to show that some people believed your lie and changed their actions, causing her financial harm, because of it.
"President Obama had killed 6 secret lovers and buried them in the White House rose garden." is a defamatory statement, but Obama won't win a lawsuit against me for saying it -- even if he can prove it is a lie. He'd have to show how my statement has damaged him before he would win a suit.
Could you please cite some legal backing to what you're saying? In NYT v. Sullivan there's no explicit mention of financial damages, nor is there in Westmoreland v. CBS.
I was about 9 or 10 when I figured out wrestling was an act. If it took a public admission that wrestling was scripted before your community figured it out then I can't help you. I also knew that Ronald McDonald was a man in a costume without any public admission of duplicity and never have I felt lied to.
I don't socialize with Ventura so I don't know first hand, but because of interaction with medicine he is on he has not been a drinker since years before the incident at McP's.
I know absolutely nothing about the man's drinking habits, which is more than I want to know about him.
Ventura was a professional wrestler from 1975 - 1986. I don't know when you turned 9 or 10, but pro wrestling was forced into being honest about its dishonesty in the late 1990s. There were several people who suspected there was something crooked going on before that, but it isn't necessary for everybody to believe a lie for it to be a lie. There were better fights in the seats between people who did and didn't believe the lie than there were in the ring. In the 1950s and 1960s I knew real people who bet real money on the outcome of matches. It was like betting on what day comes after Sunday.
I stand by my statement that anybody associated with professional wrestling in the 1970s and 1980s is a liar by default.
Haystack Calhoon invited me to join his team back in the mid 1960s but I still had a six year obligation to the Navy so we didn't get to the good part.
quote:Originally posted by JamesRK
I know absolutely nothing about the man's drinking habits, which is more than I want to know about him.
Ventura was a professional wrestler from 1975 - 1986. I don't know when you turned 9 or 10, but pro wrestling was forced into being honest about its dishonesty in the late 1990s. There were several people who suspected there was something crooked going on before that, but it isn't necessary for everybody to believe a lie for it to be a lie. There were better fights in the seats between people who did and didn't believe the lie than there were in the ring. In the 1950s and 1960s I knew real people who bet real money on the outcome of matches. It was like betting on what day comes after Sunday.
I stand by my statement that anybody associated with professional wrestling in the 1970s and 1980s is a liar by default.
So we are in a pi$$ing match over who was the bigger liar.
I don't think Kyle's lies hold any more wight than Ventura lying about his military record. "Sins of omission" the good sisters taught me. If you do not come clean with the true story, it's the same hellfire as lying outright.
But a good lawyer can weasel you out of it. Especially if the defendant is dead.
Anyone who confuses that with "justice" is delusional.
In retrospect, they both seem like jackwagons that got exactly what they deserved.
Some will die in hot pursuit
And fiery auto crashes
Some will die in hot pursuit
While sifting through my ashes
Some will fall in love with life
And drink it from a fountain
That is pouring like an avalanche
Coming down the mountain
quote:Originally posted by Rack Ops
quote:Originally posted by Mr. Perfect
In retrospect, they both seem like jackwagons that got exactly what they deserved.
Kyle deserved to be murdered?
I doubt it.
Some will die in hot pursuit
And fiery auto crashes
Some will die in hot pursuit
While sifting through my ashes
Some will fall in love with life
And drink it from a fountain
That is pouring like an avalanche
Coming down the mountain
as far as the case,...I see it as a lie by the SEAL, who should have been a better man. I would like to see, and then polygraph, anyone who would say that they saw the supposed smack. I am betting that after the folks saw the evidence,..they had no choice but to go with "BS"
if Kyle made money on a book that included a lie, even if it was about a crackhead living under a brige, the money doesn't belong to him, or his widow.
quote:Originally posted by Junkballer
So, after reading all these post I take it that wrestling is rigged [:0] [:D] [;)]
It's not rigged in the sense that a competitive sport could be rigged, because it isn't a competitive sport. It's scripted just like any stage production. The outcome is known ahead of time by all involved except some of the handicapped audience- and the handicap has nothing to do with what is normally considered a disability.
With that in mind, was Jesse "The Booty" Ventura a "good" guy or a "villain" or was he like most of them, playing different roles at different times?
I don't see the problem with Ventura suing "the helpless poor widow."
She is not poor, she has made 3 million bucks from her husband's book.
Ventura filed the suit while her husband was still living and he wanted to protect his reputation so he proceeded after Kyle's death.
Also, Kyle has told some wild stories. He claimed that he and another SEAL went to New Orleans after Katrina and, perched atop the Superdome, took out dozens of bad guys with their sniper rifles.
He also claimed that, just SW of Dallas, two armed guys tried to carjack him, and he shot them both. A reporter who investigated this, and who talked to every law enforcement agency in that area, could find nobody who had heard of such an incident. Kyle clearly made that story up.
Hearing these two fantastic claims of the SEAL sniper makes me wonder about his official kill tally in the war. Did he have eyewitnesses to all of his supposed kills?
Whatever money The Body gets won't really matter: I saw a recent clip of him walking in the court hallway and he was displaying tremors that are very consistent with the onset of Parkinsons disease. I suppose this could help if he returns to the ring because it would make it very difficult for an opponent to get a grasp on him.
quote:Originally posted by allen griggs
I don't see the problem with Ventura suing "the helpless poor widow."
She is not poor, she has made 3 million bucks from her husband's book.
Ventura filed the suit while her husband was still living and he wanted to protect his reputation so he proceeded after Kyle's death.
Also, Kyle has told some wild stories. He claimed that he and another SEAL went to New Orleans after Katrina and, perched atop the Superdome, took out dozens of bad guys with their sniper rifles.
He also claimed that, just SW of Dallas, two armed guys tried to carjack him, and he shot them both. A reporter who investigated this, and who talked to every law enforcement agency in that area, could find nobody who had heard of such an incident. Kyle clearly made that story up.
Hearing these two fantastic claims of the SEAL sniper makes me wonder about his official kill tally in the war. Did he have eyewitnesses to all of his supposed kills?
I think we can agree that both of those tall tells are cow cookies unless they were just supposed to be sea stories and got out of hand. I'd like to know if Kyle made those claims himself or they are from third parties or further removed.
I didn't think I was interested enough to put more time into this thread, but I did some poking around on the internet and the closest I could find was an unidentified policeman confirmed it to an unidentified friend of an unidentified friend.
One account did say there was a brief mention of it in Marcus Luttrell's book. If Marcus Luttrell says Chris Kyle told him the story I'll accept it as Chris Kyle lies. In the meantime I tend to believe the other internet version that the stories originated with an alleged former Navy SEAL in a bar. Maybe somebody here has read Marcus Luttrell's book and can tell us what he said about it.
If it turns out Chris Kyle really was spreading this manure that would make his word no better than James George Janos AKA Jesse The Body Ventura.
quote:Originally posted by mlincoln
quote:Originally posted by competentone
quote:Originally posted by mlincoln
quote:Originally posted by competentone
quote:Originally posted by p3skyking
quote:Originally posted by competentone
quote:Originally posted by p3skyking
Are some of you intellectually dishonest or do you normally support a liar?
It appears some hold a grudge against Ventura out of proportion of this suit. If that's the case, be honest about with at least yourself.
The man proved his case and was vindicated. Simple as that.
It is more likely the jury was kind-of dumb. They probably didn't understand the instruction they were given about defamation -- particularly as it relates to "public figures" (Ventura is one of them).
Venture should have had to demonstrate exactly how he was damaged financially by "the defamation" to win the suit -- maybe he did that by bringing in Alex Jones and Jones testified that space aliens were about to offer Ventura a $1.8 million book deal, but that fell through after they read about how he had "bad mouthed" Bush and the U.S..
Ventura has already damaged his reputation (for having any sanity) by promoting the absolutely "whacked" crowd associated with the likes of Alex Jones.
Kyle's story, even if it was untrue, couldn't do anything worse to Ventura's reputation than what Ventura has already done to himself.
Wrong. It's more like a little fib snowballed and a man had the option of making it right or telling a bigger lie. He chose the latter.
I'm pretty disgusted that petty minds can't separate personal animosity from justice, particulary people that are or were in positions of authority. Perhaps lying is a coin with which they are comfortable in dealing.
A person is either honest, or they're something lessor.
The witnesses were heard over a six day period and the jurors sifted to find the truth. Something convinced them Ventura had the stronger truth. That's no lie.
You're not understanding defamation and public figures (the same as the jury probably didn't understand it).
People can tell lies about public figures and the public figures cannot do anything about it, unless certain (very difficult) conditions are met -- particularly, the public figure has to prove how he was harmed financially from the lie.
I doubt Ventura was able to demonstrate how he was "damaged" by Kyle's statements.
The jury probably didn't understand the instructions they were given; Venture "won the jack-pot" based on jury ineptitude, not because he's "really been damaged by Kyle's comments."
I think you may be a bit off base here. Even a public figure has some protections, although they are less strong than those for a regular Joe. You can't with actual malice or reckless disregard for the truth just make up flat-out lies about public figures.
If I sit down and say, "Boy I really hate that Rosie O'Donnell and I want to do her wrong, and I'm just going to make something up about her, say that she killed 17 people while drunk driving and I'm going to publish it in a book" Rosie can sue me and she can win.
Nope. She'd have to demonstrate that she was damaged by your accusations before she could win (if the jury understood their instructions). Essentially, she'd have to show that some people believed your lie and changed their actions, causing her financial harm, because of it.
"President Obama had killed 6 secret lovers and buried them in the White House rose garden." is a defamatory statement, but Obama won't win a lawsuit against me for saying it -- even if he can prove it is a lie. He'd have to show how my statement has damaged him before he would win a suit.
Could you please cite some legal backing to what you're saying? In NYT v. Sullivan there's no explicit mention of financial damages, nor is there in Westmoreland v. CBS.
So you're suggesting that one can have a defamation case when there is no damage from the libel or slander?
(While financial damages may not be the only type of damage; for a public figure, who has a "marketable reputation," damage to their "reputation" would be calculated in monetary terms.)
quote:Originally posted by MMOMEQ-55
Had the jury gone the other way all you Kyle haters would be rooting for him. Funny how this forum works that way.
If you mean that all of the people that value truth over BS would support it, you are correct.
I don't think anyone hates Kyle, they just respect truth more than any one man.
The Obama supporter mindset where a cheat and a liar is supported without regard to facts, truth, or reason is what should be disavowed.
quote:Originally posted by competentone
quote:Originally posted by mlincoln
quote:Originally posted by competentone
quote:Originally posted by mlincoln
quote:Originally posted by competentone
quote:Originally posted by p3skyking
quote:Originally posted by competentone
quote:Originally posted by p3skyking
Are some of you intellectually dishonest or do you normally support a liar?
It appears some hold a grudge against Ventura out of proportion of this suit. If that's the case, be honest about with at least yourself.
The man proved his case and was vindicated. Simple as that.
It is more likely the jury was kind-of dumb. They probably didn't understand the instruction they were given about defamation -- particularly as it relates to "public figures" (Ventura is one of them).
Venture should have had to demonstrate exactly how he was damaged financially by "the defamation" to win the suit -- maybe he did that by bringing in Alex Jones and Jones testified that space aliens were about to offer Ventura a $1.8 million book deal, but that fell through after they read about how he had "bad mouthed" Bush and the U.S..
Ventura has already damaged his reputation (for having any sanity) by promoting the absolutely "whacked" crowd associated with the likes of Alex Jones.
Kyle's story, even if it was untrue, couldn't do anything worse to Ventura's reputation than what Ventura has already done to himself.
Wrong. It's more like a little fib snowballed and a man had the option of making it right or telling a bigger lie. He chose the latter.
I'm pretty disgusted that petty minds can't separate personal animosity from justice, particulary people that are or were in positions of authority. Perhaps lying is a coin with which they are comfortable in dealing.
A person is either honest, or they're something lessor.
The witnesses were heard over a six day period and the jurors sifted to find the truth. Something convinced them Ventura had the stronger truth. That's no lie.
You're not understanding defamation and public figures (the same as the jury probably didn't understand it).
People can tell lies about public figures and the public figures cannot do anything about it, unless certain (very difficult) conditions are met -- particularly, the public figure has to prove how he was harmed financially from the lie.
I doubt Ventura was able to demonstrate how he was "damaged" by Kyle's statements.
The jury probably didn't understand the instructions they were given; Venture "won the jack-pot" based on jury ineptitude, not because he's "really been damaged by Kyle's comments."
I think you may be a bit off base here. Even a public figure has some protections, although they are less strong than those for a regular Joe. You can't with actual malice or reckless disregard for the truth just make up flat-out lies about public figures.
If I sit down and say, "Boy I really hate that Rosie O'Donnell and I want to do her wrong, and I'm just going to make something up about her, say that she killed 17 people while drunk driving and I'm going to publish it in a book" Rosie can sue me and she can win.
Nope. She'd have to demonstrate that she was damaged by your accusations before she could win (if the jury understood their instructions). Essentially, she'd have to show that some people believed your lie and changed their actions, causing her financial harm, because of it.
"President Obama had killed 6 secret lovers and buried them in the White House rose garden." is a defamatory statement, but Obama won't win a lawsuit against me for saying it -- even if he can prove it is a lie. He'd have to show how my statement has damaged him before he would win a suit.
Could you please cite some legal backing to what you're saying? In NYT v. Sullivan there's no explicit mention of financial damages, nor is there in Westmoreland v. CBS.
So you're suggesting that one can have a defamation case when there is no damage from the libel or slander?
(While financial damages may not be the only type of damage; for a public figure, who has a "marketable reputation," damage to their "reputation" would be calculated in monetary terms.)
The issue here seems to be that you're saying that for something to be libel a financial damage must have occurred. You say something wrong and awful about me, I lose money because of it, so that's libel.
I, on the other hand, say that libel can exist even where there is no financial damage. To my understanding, libel must involve published falsehoods that were created with malice or with reckless disregard for the truth. Financial injury doesn't necessarily have to occur, although it often does.
In the NYT case and in the Westmoreland case there were, to my casual study of them, no financial injury. Westmoreland thought that CBS had done a hatchet job on him and his leadership in the war, and went out to prove it so.
In the Kyle case I believe a big chunk of the award was for "undue enrichment" or a similar term, that by including this story in his book and in the book tour supporting it, he made a pile of money off a lie about Ventura and therefore has to forfeit some of that money. (On a related note, many people are saying that the publisher's insurance will pay the lion's share of the judgment, with sort of takes away the poor penniless Kyle widow argument.)
This may seem like a silly point to argue, but I would ask you this: Under the system you argue for, what defense would I have if somebody with ill intent made up lie after lie about me, smeared my name in countless magazines and books, and yet I could never prove that it had cost me money? Under your system, I could do nothing about this person's actions. Does that seem right or logical?
quote:Originally posted by dennisnielsen
quote:Originally posted by austin20
quote:Originally posted by dennisnielsen
A friend of mine my size & I was approached by a wrestling promoter named Gene Goodson decades ago.
We walked out when we found out what total BS it was.Prima Donnas and actors
Until then you thought it was real?
Correct,never watched it.
I was a teen in high school.
I also do not watch golf or watch grass grow.Prefer to get outside & live life,not live other's.
Jose Lathario was the only wrestler I even had ever seen in my life and only because he was a garage customer.
LMAO[:D]
"Beam me up Scotty, there's no intelligent life down here." - William Shatner
1.
Law
a published false statement that is damaging to a person's reputation; a written defamation.
I really don't care about this case as both of them are blow-hard's IMO.
I was a sniper in Combat(Just Cause) and I dropped the hammer on a few bad guys and nowhere on my ERB is there a "Confirmed Kills" number.
In Afghanistan I had 4 Sniper teams that worked for me, In Iraq I had 6 teams. Nowhere did we submit "Confirmed Kills" other than in contact reports and sigacts.
The only place 'confirmed kills" are recorded are in the spotters log book.
Chris Kyle did his job and did it well in combat. He was a brother in combat but like so many when it was over he could not give it up. He was also a blow-hard chit-talker and IMO broke a code by wolfingchit about his "exploits".
I am sorry he is dead and I feel sorry for his wife and kids to have to go through the trial. I think Jesse Ventura is a classless POS but I would imagine he was libeled by Kyle. Ventura is a blow-hard, and a guy who dances around the edge of lying about his own career in the Navy. He doesn't come out and say it but he doesn't make clarifications either about his service.
quote:Originally posted by legear
I don't care what the jury or forum members say, I hold the firm belief that mayo and potted meat makes a great sandwich.
Edit.
Forgot to add, I'm just upping my post count before the thread is locked for "running it's course".
quote:Originally posted by p3skyking
quote:Originally posted by MMOMEQ-55
Had the jury gone the other way all you Kyle haters would be rooting for him. Funny how this forum works that way.
If you mean that all of the people that value truth over BS would support it, you are correct.
I don't think anyone hates Kyle, they just respect truth more than any one man.
The Obama supporter mindset where a cheat and a liar is supported without regard to facts, truth, or reason is what should be disavowed.
You, me or anyone else on this forum know what the truth is.
We only know what we read on the internet and I for one refuse to believe everything I read there. I imagine the actual truth is somewhere in between. IMHO.
This is the thread that will not end...
It will go on and on my friends...
Some people started slinging it not knowing what it was...
And they'll continue slinging it forever just because...
This is the thread that will not end...
It will go on and on my friends...
Some people started slinging it not knowing what it was...
And they'll continue slinging it forever just because...
Comments
quote:Originally posted by skicat
Wow. You guys will make up whatever suits you and defend it shamelessly. Now you would have us believe all the jurors were incompetent and all because you have some emotional investment in Kyle that is too painful to give up. Kyle had the opportunity to man up before he died and didn't. Therefore he is a dishonest. By not clearing this up before he died he passed this burden on to his wife. Kyle could have retracted his statement when this first came to light and it would have been over but then he wouldn't have gotten all that free publicity and the extra book sales which followed.
I'm sorry Kyle is dead. I'm sorry he lied. I'm sorry you guys are ready to accept a lie as truth rather than burst your hero bubble. Sad.
+1. And who would have believed in the first place that Kyle could have knocked Ventura down. Ventura would have broke him in half like a pretzel. Mess with the bull you get the horn.
Once again, the Obama idiot mindset makes it's presence known on the GD forum. Nothing will change their minds, Nunn said that. How can you reason with a static mind? You can't.
Wow. You guys will make up whatever suits you and defend it shamelessly. Now you would have us believe all the jurors were incompetent and all because you have some emotional investment in Kyle that is too painful to give up. Kyle had the opportunity to man up before he died and didn't. Therefore he is a dishonest. By not clearing this up before he died he passed this burden on to his wife. Kyle could have retracted his statement when this first came to light and it would have been over but then he wouldn't have gotten all that free publicity and the extra book sales which followed.
I'm sorry Kyle is dead. I'm sorry he lied. I'm sorry you guys are ready to accept a lie as truth rather than burst your hero bubble. Sad.
LOL!
I have absolutely no "emotional investment" in Kyle. In fact, I think it is pretty pathetic that he tried to make money off his military activity. I don't see killing in war as something one should be "proud" of. War is a dirty job; I appreciate those who do it, but respect the "quiet hero" who makes a name and reputation for himself outside of the actions he took during war.
Specific to the jurors: "incompetence" is not an uncommon situation. Defamation is a fairly complex issue -- particularly so when it involves a public figure who is claiming to be the victim.
So far, I have only said "probably" when it comes to issues of "understanding" of the case by jurors. If any of them are willing to do post-trial interviews, it will be interesting to see what they say, but I expect, if they explain their thinking, they will be "hung up" on the question about whether or not what Kyle said "was a lie" -- in a public figure defamation case, that is commonly not the primary question the jurors need to be looking at.
As I said before, people can make up lies about a public figure, and the public figure won't have grounds for a defamation suit unless he can prove actual damages. A general "decline in income" can be attributed to many other factors. I haven't heard how Ventura "proved" Kyles caused him damages.
quote:Originally posted by p3skyking
quote:Originally posted by competentone
quote:Originally posted by p3skyking
Are some of you intellectually dishonest or do you normally support a liar?
It appears some hold a grudge against Ventura out of proportion of this suit. If that's the case, be honest about with at least yourself.
The man proved his case and was vindicated. Simple as that.
It is more likely the jury was kind-of dumb. They probably didn't understand the instruction they were given about defamation -- particularly as it relates to "public figures" (Ventura is one of them).
Venture should have had to demonstrate exactly how he was damaged financially by "the defamation" to win the suit -- maybe he did that by bringing in Alex Jones and Jones testified that space aliens were about to offer Ventura a $1.8 million book deal, but that fell through after they read about how he had "bad mouthed" Bush and the U.S..
Ventura has already damaged his reputation (for having any sanity) by promoting the absolutely "whacked" crowd associated with the likes of Alex Jones.
Kyle's story, even if it was untrue, couldn't do anything worse to Ventura's reputation than what Ventura has already done to himself.
Wrong. It's more like a little fib snowballed and a man had the option of making it right or telling a bigger lie. He chose the latter.
I'm pretty disgusted that petty minds can't separate personal animosity from justice, particulary people that are or were in positions of authority. Perhaps lying is a coin with which they are comfortable in dealing.
A person is either honest, or they're something lessor.
The witnesses were heard over a six day period and the jurors sifted to find the truth. Something convinced them Ventura had the stronger truth. That's no lie.
You're not understanding defamation and public figures (the same as the jury probably didn't understand it).
People can tell lies about public figures and the public figures cannot do anything about it, unless certain (very difficult) conditions are met -- particularly, the public figure has to prove how he was harmed financially from the lie.
I doubt Ventura was able to demonstrate how he was "damaged" by Kyle's statements.
The jury probably didn't understand the instructions they were given; Venture "won the jack-pot" based on jury ineptitude, not because he's "really been damaged by Kyle's comments."
I think you may be a bit off base here. Even a public figure has some protections, although they are less strong than those for a regular Joe. You can't with actual malice or reckless disregard for the truth just make up flat-out lies about public figures.
If I sit down and say, "Boy I really hate that Rosie O'Donnell and I want to do her wrong, and I'm just going to make something up about her, say that she killed 17 people while drunk driving and I'm going to publish it in a book" Rosie can sue me and she can win.
quote:Originally posted by competentone
quote:Originally posted by p3skyking
quote:Originally posted by competentone
quote:Originally posted by p3skyking
Are some of you intellectually dishonest or do you normally support a liar?
It appears some hold a grudge against Ventura out of proportion of this suit. If that's the case, be honest about with at least yourself.
The man proved his case and was vindicated. Simple as that.
It is more likely the jury was kind-of dumb. They probably didn't understand the instruction they were given about defamation -- particularly as it relates to "public figures" (Ventura is one of them).
Venture should have had to demonstrate exactly how he was damaged financially by "the defamation" to win the suit -- maybe he did that by bringing in Alex Jones and Jones testified that space aliens were about to offer Ventura a $1.8 million book deal, but that fell through after they read about how he had "bad mouthed" Bush and the U.S..
Ventura has already damaged his reputation (for having any sanity) by promoting the absolutely "whacked" crowd associated with the likes of Alex Jones.
Kyle's story, even if it was untrue, couldn't do anything worse to Ventura's reputation than what Ventura has already done to himself.
Wrong. It's more like a little fib snowballed and a man had the option of making it right or telling a bigger lie. He chose the latter.
I'm pretty disgusted that petty minds can't separate personal animosity from justice, particulary people that are or were in positions of authority. Perhaps lying is a coin with which they are comfortable in dealing.
A person is either honest, or they're something lessor.
The witnesses were heard over a six day period and the jurors sifted to find the truth. Something convinced them Ventura had the stronger truth. That's no lie.
You're not understanding defamation and public figures (the same as the jury probably didn't understand it).
People can tell lies about public figures and the public figures cannot do anything about it, unless certain (very difficult) conditions are met -- particularly, the public figure has to prove how he was harmed financially from the lie.
I doubt Ventura was able to demonstrate how he was "damaged" by Kyle's statements.
The jury probably didn't understand the instructions they were given; Venture "won the jack-pot" based on jury ineptitude, not because he's "really been damaged by Kyle's comments."
I think you may be a bit off base here. Even a public figure has some protections, although they are less strong than those for a regular Joe. You can't with actual malice or reckless disregard for the truth just make up flat-out lies about public figures.
If I sit down and say, "Boy I really hate that Rosie O'Donnell and I want to do her wrong, and I'm just going to make something up about her, say that she killed 17 people while drunk driving and I'm going to publish it in a book" Rosie can sue me and she can win.
Nope. She'd have to demonstrate that she was damaged by your accusations before she could win (if the jury understood their instructions). Essentially, she'd have to show that some people believed your lie and changed their actions, causing her financial harm, because of it.
"President Obama had killed 6 secret lovers and buried them in the White House rose garden." is a defamatory statement, but Obama won't win a lawsuit against me for saying it -- even if he can prove it is a lie. He'd have to show how my statement has damaged him before he would win a suit.
Wow. You guys will make up whatever suits you and defend it shamelessly. Now you would have us believe all the jurors were incompetent and all because you have some emotional investment in Kyle that is too painful to give up. Kyle had the opportunity to man up before he died and didn't. Therefore he is a dishonest. By not clearing this up before he died he passed this burden on to his wife. Kyle could have retracted his statement when this first came to light and it would have been over but then he wouldn't have gotten all that free publicity and the extra book sales which followed.
I'm sorry Kyle is dead. I'm sorry he lied. I'm sorry you guys are ready to accept a lie as truth rather than burst your hero bubble. Sad.
You address this to "You guys" but I can only speak for myself. I simply consider what I know about the people involved and decide which is the most credible, the situation and which is the most plausible and decide which one I believe.
All I know about Kyle is he was a Navy SEAL sniper who was credited with a lot of confirmed kills. He wrote a book. He got murdered in Texas by a man he was trying to help.
All I know about Ventura is his name is James George Janos. He was a member of Navy UDT (Underwater Demolition Teams) who led people to believe he was a member of Navy SEALs without ever actually making that statement. He also led people to believe he was a combat veteran without ever actually making that statement. He was a professional wrestler where dishonesty was part of the job, proving he is willing to lie for a dollar. He was a professional politician. Enough said about that profession. He is or was the host of the Conspiracy Theory TV show. He either belies what he claims on that show proving he is insane or he doesn't believe it proving yet again he is willing to lie for a dollar. In other words he is a showman in search of a show.
I am familiar with barrooms where people, even former sailors, sometimes allow their mouth to overload their *. I find it quite plausible that Mister Janos put his mouth in gear and for whatever reason failed to back it up.
If I have to pick which one to believe, the preponderance of the evidence goes with Kyle on this one.
The jury said Ventura proved his case. That's good enough for me, just like the O. J. murder trial. I'm not required to agree with it and it didn't cost me anything.
quote:Originally posted by skicat
Wow. You guys will make up whatever suits you and defend it shamelessly. Now you would have us believe all the jurors were incompetent and all because you have some emotional investment in Kyle that is too painful to give up. Kyle had the opportunity to man up before he died and didn't. Therefore he is a dishonest. By not clearing this up before he died he passed this burden on to his wife. Kyle could have retracted his statement when this first came to light and it would have been over but then he wouldn't have gotten all that free publicity and the extra book sales which followed.
I'm sorry Kyle is dead. I'm sorry he lied. I'm sorry you guys are ready to accept a lie as truth rather than burst your hero bubble. Sad.
You address this to "You guys" but I can only speak for myself. I simply consider what I know about the people involved and decide which is the most credible, the situation and which is the most plausible and decide which one I believe.
All I know about Kyle is he was a Navy SEAL sniper who was credited with a lot of confirmed kills. He wrote a book. He got murdered in Texas by a man he was trying to help.
All I know about Ventura is his name is James George Janos. He was a member of Navy UDT (Underwater Demolition Teams) who led people to believe he was a member of Navy SEALs without ever actually making that statement. He also led people to believe he was a combat veteran without ever actually making that statement. He was a professional wrestler where dishonesty was part of the job, proving he is willing to lie for a dollar. He was a professional politician. Enough said about that profession. He is or was the host of the Conspiracy Theory TV show. He either belies what he claims on that show proving he is insane or he doesn't believe it proving yet again he is willing to lie for a dollar. In other words he is a showman in search of a show.
I am familiar with barrooms where people, even former sailors, sometimes allow their mouth to overload their *. I find it quite plausible that Mister Janos put his mouth in gear and for whatever reason failed to back it up.
If I have to pick which one to believe, the preponderance of the evidence goes with Kyle on this one.
The jury said Ventura proved his case. That's good enough for me, just like the O. J. murder trial. I'm not required to agree with it and it didn't cost me anything.
I figured those I was talking about would know who I meant and to clarify further you were not in my thoughts as I wrote this James.
I do find it interesting that when someone has a bias then anything can be spun to be a negative. An example is your reference to him being dishonest because he was a wrestler. You might as well brand every actor who played a part in any production a liar. To think of all those children in school plays wearing false beards and stovepipe hats pretending to be Abraham Lincoln. What scandal! Training our youth to be so deceitful.
The reason I and many others voted Ventura in as Governor of MN was that in every interview,speech, appearance he was consistently himself. He never gave a scripted political non-answer like every other trained political hack we have been cursed with.
Sometimes what he said was stupid and poorly thought out. Many of the times I disagreed with his ideas. I still voted for him because he always spoke his mind and I knew where he stood. That had value to me. I respected his courage to give public answers which were his own and subject to critique and ridicule as opposed to giving the safe political noncommittal responses we get from everyone these days. Considering he had no support from either party while he was Governor, and the media kept focus off his ideas and goals preferring to sink to tabloid level coverage, he did no worse than any other of our Governors.
So what I know about the man is that he served in uniform,he had a career as an entertainer both wrestling and films, he worked in local govt as mayor of a town near me,he was a mediocre color commentator and radio show host, he became the highest level politician to ever win on a reform ticket and became Governor of MN, he authored some books and created his own TV series. If nothing else you have to admire his work ethic.
I have heard him criticize the govt and speak against the various uses our military has been tasked with, but he has consistently supported military personnel and their families.
Turn this thing around for a minute and lets say that instead of Kyle defaming Ventura say it was Piers Morgan who defamed Ventura. I'd wager a whole lot of you would switch sides to back Ventura the serviceman and former Governor of MN.
I also wonder how many of you would stop trying to clear your name if you were labelled a pedophile simply because the one making the accusation had died. I know the answer already. None of you would quietly accept that label.
For those of you who think this was just about money grubbing, you are forgetting that Ventura offered them an out right at the beginning and they refused. They made their bed and now they get to lay in it.
quote:Originally posted by skicat
Wow. You guys will make up whatever suits you and defend it shamelessly. Now you would have us believe all the jurors were incompetent and all because you have some emotional investment in Kyle that is too painful to give up. Kyle had the opportunity to man up before he died and didn't. Therefore he is a dishonest. By not clearing this up before he died he passed this burden on to his wife. Kyle could have retracted his statement when this first came to light and it would have been over but then he wouldn't have gotten all that free publicity and the extra book sales which followed.
I'm sorry Kyle is dead. I'm sorry he lied. I'm sorry you guys are ready to accept a lie as truth rather than burst your hero bubble. Sad.
You address this to "You guys" but I can only speak for myself. I simply consider what I know about the people involved and decide which is the most credible, the situation and which is the most plausible and decide which one I believe.
All I know about Kyle is he was a Navy SEAL sniper who was credited with a lot of confirmed kills. He wrote a book. He got murdered in Texas by a man he was trying to help.
All I know about Ventura is his name is James George Janos. He was a member of Navy UDT (Underwater Demolition Teams) who led people to believe he was a member of Navy SEALs without ever actually making that statement. He also led people to believe he was a combat veteran without ever actually making that statement. He was a professional wrestler where dishonesty was part of the job, proving he is willing to lie for a dollar. He was a professional politician. Enough said about that profession. He is or was the host of the Conspiracy Theory TV show. He either belies what he claims on that show proving he is insane or he doesn't believe it proving yet again he is willing to lie for a dollar. In other words he is a showman in search of a show.
I am familiar with barrooms where people, even former sailors, sometimes allow their mouth to overload their *. I find it quite plausible that Mister Janos put his mouth in gear and for whatever reason failed to back it up.
If I have to pick which one to believe, the preponderance of the evidence goes with Kyle on this one.
The jury said Ventura proved his case. That's good enough for me, just like the O. J. murder trial. I'm not required to agree with it and it didn't cost me anything.
James, You know Jesse better than you think...well said...thx
Today professional wrestling openly admits the wrestlers and their entourages are actors playing roles and following a script. I don't know if they admit winners and losers are chosen before the match, but they do admit if a sporting event happens it's merely a coincidence.
In the days when Jesse The Body Ventura was a professional wrestler it was promoted as a sport. Some local News/Weather/Sports programs even included the results of the matches in the sports report. Any existence of a script was vehemently denied. In the days when Jesse The Body Ventura was a professional wrestler, anybody associated with the "sport" was a liar by default.
Today an argument could be made that professional wrestlers are legitimate actors. Not so in Jesse The Body Ventura's day.
I had forgotten about his movie career. Now that you mention it I do remember he was in a movie where he either killed or got killed by some invisible space alien. I think there was another mental giant former governor in that movie.
I have no doubt the man speaks his mind, especially after a little lubrication of the tongue. I think that's exactly what he was doing when he allegedly made the alleged remarks that allegedly got him an alleged slap. I've heard Ventura is also an expert in the martial art of "I sue".
I think the crowning achievement in his life's body of work is his TV show, Conspiracy Theory. Anybody with doubts about the character of the man should watch a few of the reruns of the show. That show convinced me he is either insane or a liar. I'm not sure which.
quote:Originally posted by mlincoln
quote:Originally posted by competentone
quote:Originally posted by p3skyking
quote:Originally posted by competentone
quote:Originally posted by p3skyking
Are some of you intellectually dishonest or do you normally support a liar?
It appears some hold a grudge against Ventura out of proportion of this suit. If that's the case, be honest about with at least yourself.
The man proved his case and was vindicated. Simple as that.
It is more likely the jury was kind-of dumb. They probably didn't understand the instruction they were given about defamation -- particularly as it relates to "public figures" (Ventura is one of them).
Venture should have had to demonstrate exactly how he was damaged financially by "the defamation" to win the suit -- maybe he did that by bringing in Alex Jones and Jones testified that space aliens were about to offer Ventura a $1.8 million book deal, but that fell through after they read about how he had "bad mouthed" Bush and the U.S..
Ventura has already damaged his reputation (for having any sanity) by promoting the absolutely "whacked" crowd associated with the likes of Alex Jones.
Kyle's story, even if it was untrue, couldn't do anything worse to Ventura's reputation than what Ventura has already done to himself.
Wrong. It's more like a little fib snowballed and a man had the option of making it right or telling a bigger lie. He chose the latter.
I'm pretty disgusted that petty minds can't separate personal animosity from justice, particulary people that are or were in positions of authority. Perhaps lying is a coin with which they are comfortable in dealing.
A person is either honest, or they're something lessor.
The witnesses were heard over a six day period and the jurors sifted to find the truth. Something convinced them Ventura had the stronger truth. That's no lie.
You're not understanding defamation and public figures (the same as the jury probably didn't understand it).
People can tell lies about public figures and the public figures cannot do anything about it, unless certain (very difficult) conditions are met -- particularly, the public figure has to prove how he was harmed financially from the lie.
I doubt Ventura was able to demonstrate how he was "damaged" by Kyle's statements.
The jury probably didn't understand the instructions they were given; Venture "won the jack-pot" based on jury ineptitude, not because he's "really been damaged by Kyle's comments."
I think you may be a bit off base here. Even a public figure has some protections, although they are less strong than those for a regular Joe. You can't with actual malice or reckless disregard for the truth just make up flat-out lies about public figures.
If I sit down and say, "Boy I really hate that Rosie O'Donnell and I want to do her wrong, and I'm just going to make something up about her, say that she killed 17 people while drunk driving and I'm going to publish it in a book" Rosie can sue me and she can win.
Nope. She'd have to demonstrate that she was damaged by your accusations before she could win (if the jury understood their instructions). Essentially, she'd have to show that some people believed your lie and changed their actions, causing her financial harm, because of it.
"President Obama had killed 6 secret lovers and buried them in the White House rose garden." is a defamatory statement, but Obama won't win a lawsuit against me for saying it -- even if he can prove it is a lie. He'd have to show how my statement has damaged him before he would win a suit.
Could you please cite some legal backing to what you're saying? In NYT v. Sullivan there's no explicit mention of financial damages, nor is there in Westmoreland v. CBS.
I don't socialize with Ventura so I don't know first hand, but because of interaction with medicine he is on he has not been a drinker since years before the incident at McP's.
Ventura was a professional wrestler from 1975 - 1986. I don't know when you turned 9 or 10, but pro wrestling was forced into being honest about its dishonesty in the late 1990s. There were several people who suspected there was something crooked going on before that, but it isn't necessary for everybody to believe a lie for it to be a lie. There were better fights in the seats between people who did and didn't believe the lie than there were in the ring. In the 1950s and 1960s I knew real people who bet real money on the outcome of matches. It was like betting on what day comes after Sunday.
I stand by my statement that anybody associated with professional wrestling in the 1970s and 1980s is a liar by default.
I know absolutely nothing about the man's drinking habits, which is more than I want to know about him.
Ventura was a professional wrestler from 1975 - 1986. I don't know when you turned 9 or 10, but pro wrestling was forced into being honest about its dishonesty in the late 1990s. There were several people who suspected there was something crooked going on before that, but it isn't necessary for everybody to believe a lie for it to be a lie. There were better fights in the seats between people who did and didn't believe the lie than there were in the ring. In the 1950s and 1960s I knew real people who bet real money on the outcome of matches. It was like betting on what day comes after Sunday.
I stand by my statement that anybody associated with professional wrestling in the 1970s and 1980s is a liar by default.
OK then.
I don't think Kyle's lies hold any more wight than Ventura lying about his military record. "Sins of omission" the good sisters taught me. If you do not come clean with the true story, it's the same hellfire as lying outright.
But a good lawyer can weasel you out of it. Especially if the defendant is dead.
Anyone who confuses that with "justice" is delusional.
And fiery auto crashes
Some will die in hot pursuit
While sifting through my ashes
Some will fall in love with life
And drink it from a fountain
That is pouring like an avalanche
Coming down the mountain
In retrospect, they both seem like jackwagons that got exactly what they deserved.
Kyle deserved to be murdered?
quote:Originally posted by Mr. Perfect
In retrospect, they both seem like jackwagons that got exactly what they deserved.
Kyle deserved to be murdered?
I doubt it.
And fiery auto crashes
Some will die in hot pursuit
While sifting through my ashes
Some will fall in love with life
And drink it from a fountain
That is pouring like an avalanche
Coming down the mountain
"Never do wrong to make a friend----or to keep one".....Robert E. Lee
as far as the case,...I see it as a lie by the SEAL, who should have been a better man. I would like to see, and then polygraph, anyone who would say that they saw the supposed smack. I am betting that after the folks saw the evidence,..they had no choice but to go with "BS"
if Kyle made money on a book that included a lie, even if it was about a crackhead living under a brige, the money doesn't belong to him, or his widow.
So, after reading all these post I take it that wrestling is rigged [:0] [:D] [;)]
It's not rigged in the sense that a competitive sport could be rigged, because it isn't a competitive sport. It's scripted just like any stage production. The outcome is known ahead of time by all involved except some of the handicapped audience- and the handicap has nothing to do with what is normally considered a disability.
With that in mind, was Jesse "The Booty" Ventura a "good" guy or a "villain" or was he like most of them, playing different roles at different times?
She is not poor, she has made 3 million bucks from her husband's book.
Ventura filed the suit while her husband was still living and he wanted to protect his reputation so he proceeded after Kyle's death.
Also, Kyle has told some wild stories. He claimed that he and another SEAL went to New Orleans after Katrina and, perched atop the Superdome, took out dozens of bad guys with their sniper rifles.
He also claimed that, just SW of Dallas, two armed guys tried to carjack him, and he shot them both. A reporter who investigated this, and who talked to every law enforcement agency in that area, could find nobody who had heard of such an incident. Kyle clearly made that story up.
Hearing these two fantastic claims of the SEAL sniper makes me wonder about his official kill tally in the war. Did he have eyewitnesses to all of his supposed kills?
So, after reading all these post I take it that wrestling is rigged [:0] [:D] [;)]
you may be on to something.
could be this whole thing was scripted.
book sales need a pick me up?
Jesse not in the limelight (between shows)?
this whole thing was probably rigged to keep Jesse in the spot light and boost book sales.
I don't see the problem with Ventura suing "the helpless poor widow."
She is not poor, she has made 3 million bucks from her husband's book.
Ventura filed the suit while her husband was still living and he wanted to protect his reputation so he proceeded after Kyle's death.
Also, Kyle has told some wild stories. He claimed that he and another SEAL went to New Orleans after Katrina and, perched atop the Superdome, took out dozens of bad guys with their sniper rifles.
He also claimed that, just SW of Dallas, two armed guys tried to carjack him, and he shot them both. A reporter who investigated this, and who talked to every law enforcement agency in that area, could find nobody who had heard of such an incident. Kyle clearly made that story up.
Hearing these two fantastic claims of the SEAL sniper makes me wonder about his official kill tally in the war. Did he have eyewitnesses to all of his supposed kills?
I think we can agree that both of those tall tells are cow cookies unless they were just supposed to be sea stories and got out of hand. I'd like to know if Kyle made those claims himself or they are from third parties or further removed.
I didn't think I was interested enough to put more time into this thread, but I did some poking around on the internet and the closest I could find was an unidentified policeman confirmed it to an unidentified friend of an unidentified friend.
One account did say there was a brief mention of it in Marcus Luttrell's book. If Marcus Luttrell says Chris Kyle told him the story I'll accept it as Chris Kyle lies. In the meantime I tend to believe the other internet version that the stories originated with an alleged former Navy SEAL in a bar. Maybe somebody here has read Marcus Luttrell's book and can tell us what he said about it.
If it turns out Chris Kyle really was spreading this manure that would make his word no better than James George Janos AKA Jesse The Body Ventura.
quote:Originally posted by competentone
quote:Originally posted by mlincoln
quote:Originally posted by competentone
quote:Originally posted by p3skyking
quote:Originally posted by competentone
quote:Originally posted by p3skyking
Are some of you intellectually dishonest or do you normally support a liar?
It appears some hold a grudge against Ventura out of proportion of this suit. If that's the case, be honest about with at least yourself.
The man proved his case and was vindicated. Simple as that.
It is more likely the jury was kind-of dumb. They probably didn't understand the instruction they were given about defamation -- particularly as it relates to "public figures" (Ventura is one of them).
Venture should have had to demonstrate exactly how he was damaged financially by "the defamation" to win the suit -- maybe he did that by bringing in Alex Jones and Jones testified that space aliens were about to offer Ventura a $1.8 million book deal, but that fell through after they read about how he had "bad mouthed" Bush and the U.S..
Ventura has already damaged his reputation (for having any sanity) by promoting the absolutely "whacked" crowd associated with the likes of Alex Jones.
Kyle's story, even if it was untrue, couldn't do anything worse to Ventura's reputation than what Ventura has already done to himself.
Wrong. It's more like a little fib snowballed and a man had the option of making it right or telling a bigger lie. He chose the latter.
I'm pretty disgusted that petty minds can't separate personal animosity from justice, particulary people that are or were in positions of authority. Perhaps lying is a coin with which they are comfortable in dealing.
A person is either honest, or they're something lessor.
The witnesses were heard over a six day period and the jurors sifted to find the truth. Something convinced them Ventura had the stronger truth. That's no lie.
You're not understanding defamation and public figures (the same as the jury probably didn't understand it).
People can tell lies about public figures and the public figures cannot do anything about it, unless certain (very difficult) conditions are met -- particularly, the public figure has to prove how he was harmed financially from the lie.
I doubt Ventura was able to demonstrate how he was "damaged" by Kyle's statements.
The jury probably didn't understand the instructions they were given; Venture "won the jack-pot" based on jury ineptitude, not because he's "really been damaged by Kyle's comments."
I think you may be a bit off base here. Even a public figure has some protections, although they are less strong than those for a regular Joe. You can't with actual malice or reckless disregard for the truth just make up flat-out lies about public figures.
If I sit down and say, "Boy I really hate that Rosie O'Donnell and I want to do her wrong, and I'm just going to make something up about her, say that she killed 17 people while drunk driving and I'm going to publish it in a book" Rosie can sue me and she can win.
Nope. She'd have to demonstrate that she was damaged by your accusations before she could win (if the jury understood their instructions). Essentially, she'd have to show that some people believed your lie and changed their actions, causing her financial harm, because of it.
"President Obama had killed 6 secret lovers and buried them in the White House rose garden." is a defamatory statement, but Obama won't win a lawsuit against me for saying it -- even if he can prove it is a lie. He'd have to show how my statement has damaged him before he would win a suit.
Could you please cite some legal backing to what you're saying? In NYT v. Sullivan there's no explicit mention of financial damages, nor is there in Westmoreland v. CBS.
So you're suggesting that one can have a defamation case when there is no damage from the libel or slander?
(While financial damages may not be the only type of damage; for a public figure, who has a "marketable reputation," damage to their "reputation" would be calculated in monetary terms.)
Had the jury gone the other way all you Kyle haters would be rooting for him. Funny how this forum works that way.
If you mean that all of the people that value truth over BS would support it, you are correct.
I don't think anyone hates Kyle, they just respect truth more than any one man.
The Obama supporter mindset where a cheat and a liar is supported without regard to facts, truth, or reason is what should be disavowed.
quote:Originally posted by mlincoln
quote:Originally posted by competentone
quote:Originally posted by mlincoln
quote:Originally posted by competentone
quote:Originally posted by p3skyking
quote:Originally posted by competentone
quote:Originally posted by p3skyking
Are some of you intellectually dishonest or do you normally support a liar?
It appears some hold a grudge against Ventura out of proportion of this suit. If that's the case, be honest about with at least yourself.
The man proved his case and was vindicated. Simple as that.
It is more likely the jury was kind-of dumb. They probably didn't understand the instruction they were given about defamation -- particularly as it relates to "public figures" (Ventura is one of them).
Venture should have had to demonstrate exactly how he was damaged financially by "the defamation" to win the suit -- maybe he did that by bringing in Alex Jones and Jones testified that space aliens were about to offer Ventura a $1.8 million book deal, but that fell through after they read about how he had "bad mouthed" Bush and the U.S..
Ventura has already damaged his reputation (for having any sanity) by promoting the absolutely "whacked" crowd associated with the likes of Alex Jones.
Kyle's story, even if it was untrue, couldn't do anything worse to Ventura's reputation than what Ventura has already done to himself.
Wrong. It's more like a little fib snowballed and a man had the option of making it right or telling a bigger lie. He chose the latter.
I'm pretty disgusted that petty minds can't separate personal animosity from justice, particulary people that are or were in positions of authority. Perhaps lying is a coin with which they are comfortable in dealing.
A person is either honest, or they're something lessor.
The witnesses were heard over a six day period and the jurors sifted to find the truth. Something convinced them Ventura had the stronger truth. That's no lie.
You're not understanding defamation and public figures (the same as the jury probably didn't understand it).
People can tell lies about public figures and the public figures cannot do anything about it, unless certain (very difficult) conditions are met -- particularly, the public figure has to prove how he was harmed financially from the lie.
I doubt Ventura was able to demonstrate how he was "damaged" by Kyle's statements.
The jury probably didn't understand the instructions they were given; Venture "won the jack-pot" based on jury ineptitude, not because he's "really been damaged by Kyle's comments."
I think you may be a bit off base here. Even a public figure has some protections, although they are less strong than those for a regular Joe. You can't with actual malice or reckless disregard for the truth just make up flat-out lies about public figures.
If I sit down and say, "Boy I really hate that Rosie O'Donnell and I want to do her wrong, and I'm just going to make something up about her, say that she killed 17 people while drunk driving and I'm going to publish it in a book" Rosie can sue me and she can win.
Nope. She'd have to demonstrate that she was damaged by your accusations before she could win (if the jury understood their instructions). Essentially, she'd have to show that some people believed your lie and changed their actions, causing her financial harm, because of it.
"President Obama had killed 6 secret lovers and buried them in the White House rose garden." is a defamatory statement, but Obama won't win a lawsuit against me for saying it -- even if he can prove it is a lie. He'd have to show how my statement has damaged him before he would win a suit.
Could you please cite some legal backing to what you're saying? In NYT v. Sullivan there's no explicit mention of financial damages, nor is there in Westmoreland v. CBS.
So you're suggesting that one can have a defamation case when there is no damage from the libel or slander?
(While financial damages may not be the only type of damage; for a public figure, who has a "marketable reputation," damage to their "reputation" would be calculated in monetary terms.)
The issue here seems to be that you're saying that for something to be libel a financial damage must have occurred. You say something wrong and awful about me, I lose money because of it, so that's libel.
I, on the other hand, say that libel can exist even where there is no financial damage. To my understanding, libel must involve published falsehoods that were created with malice or with reckless disregard for the truth. Financial injury doesn't necessarily have to occur, although it often does.
In the NYT case and in the Westmoreland case there were, to my casual study of them, no financial injury. Westmoreland thought that CBS had done a hatchet job on him and his leadership in the war, and went out to prove it so.
In the Kyle case I believe a big chunk of the award was for "undue enrichment" or a similar term, that by including this story in his book and in the book tour supporting it, he made a pile of money off a lie about Ventura and therefore has to forfeit some of that money. (On a related note, many people are saying that the publisher's insurance will pay the lion's share of the judgment, with sort of takes away the poor penniless Kyle widow argument.)
This may seem like a silly point to argue, but I would ask you this: Under the system you argue for, what defense would I have if somebody with ill intent made up lie after lie about me, smeared my name in countless magazines and books, and yet I could never prove that it had cost me money? Under your system, I could do nothing about this person's actions. Does that seem right or logical?
quote:Originally posted by austin20
quote:Originally posted by dennisnielsen
A friend of mine my size & I was approached by a wrestling promoter named Gene Goodson decades ago.
We walked out when we found out what total BS it was.Prima Donnas and actors
Until then you thought it was real?
Correct,never watched it.
I was a teen in high school.
I also do not watch golf or watch grass grow.Prefer to get outside & live life,not live other's.
Jose Lathario was the only wrestler I even had ever seen in my life and only because he was a garage customer.
LMAO[:D]
The jury said so.
Definition:
li?bel
#712;l#299;b#601;l/
noun
noun: libel; plural noun: libels
1.
Law
a published false statement that is damaging to a person's reputation; a written defamation.
I really don't care about this case as both of them are blow-hard's IMO.
I was a sniper in Combat(Just Cause) and I dropped the hammer on a few bad guys and nowhere on my ERB is there a "Confirmed Kills" number.
In Afghanistan I had 4 Sniper teams that worked for me, In Iraq I had 6 teams. Nowhere did we submit "Confirmed Kills" other than in contact reports and sigacts.
The only place 'confirmed kills" are recorded are in the spotters log book.
Chris Kyle did his job and did it well in combat. He was a brother in combat but like so many when it was over he could not give it up. He was also a blow-hard chit-talker and IMO broke a code by wolfingchit about his "exploits".
I am sorry he is dead and I feel sorry for his wife and kids to have to go through the trial. I think Jesse Ventura is a classless POS but I would imagine he was libeled by Kyle. Ventura is a blow-hard, and a guy who dances around the edge of lying about his own career in the Navy. He doesn't come out and say it but he doesn't make clarifications either about his service.
Like S-F said............
Pick up the bases the Ballgame is over.
Edit.
Forgot to add, I'm just upping my post count before the thread is locked for "running it's course".
[:o)]
I don't care what the jury or forum members say, I hold the firm belief that mayo and potted meat makes a great sandwich.
Edit.
Forgot to add, I'm just upping my post count before the thread is locked for "running it's course".
[:o)]
Prescient.
Bunch of slack jawed friends.[:D]
son of a * of a thread is dug in like an Alabama tick.
quote:Originally posted by MMOMEQ-55
Had the jury gone the other way all you Kyle haters would be rooting for him. Funny how this forum works that way.
If you mean that all of the people that value truth over BS would support it, you are correct.
I don't think anyone hates Kyle, they just respect truth more than any one man.
The Obama supporter mindset where a cheat and a liar is supported without regard to facts, truth, or reason is what should be disavowed.
You, me or anyone else on this forum know what the truth is.
We only know what we read on the internet and I for one refuse to believe everything I read there. I imagine the actual truth is somewhere in between. IMHO.
It will go on and on my friends...
Some people started slinging it not knowing what it was...
And they'll continue slinging it forever just because...
This is the thread that will not end...
It will go on and on my friends...
Some people started slinging it not knowing what it was...
And they'll continue slinging it forever just because...
This is the thread that will not end...
[:0][;)][:D]