Depp V Heard (Defamation lawsuit)

Spiritual_Chaos

HughFreakingDillon said:

Spiritual_Chaos said:

mickeyrat said:

Spiritual_Chaos said:

Such a weird system, having a long trial with professionals who have studied law and then throw it over to some ordinary people to interpret the law without any knowledge of it or experience with it.

I get the "idea" behind it. And I am not sure what a perfect system would be. But this is just weird.

the jury doesnt interept the law. they weigh the evidence given and witness credibility against the instructions given by the judge.

As I said, weird.

but it's the only system we have. honestly, you could have a jury made up of all legal experts and they'd still get it wrong and/or disagree all the time.

I don't know what you are saying here. First off, it being "the only system we have" doesn't take away from it being weird nor say that another system couldn't be used instead (you do know that there are other countries doing it differently for example, right?).

Second, anyone could get something wrong or disagree with someone else. But like you do and fully equate some random peeps sitting there deciding and legal professionals who know law and have experience with other cases and the text...?

Spiritual_Chaos

HughFreakingDillon said:

i personally don't give two shits (or even one) about this trial. to me this is just entertainment. the people who seem to be taking this as seriously as the OJ trial or any other legitimate criminal trial, well, maybe sign out or something. 

Well, maybe the people should have taken the OJ trial seriously - with people of that jury admitting to freeing him to get back at the LAPD.

Now, would that happen as often and as much with legal professionals?

Spiritual_Chaos

Depp played with Jeff Beck yesterday. 

Jury meet up again tomorrow .

Bentleyspop

He won....

https://twitter.com/RollingStone/status/1532082510397579265?t=sPhpwvmhcw6I351p4IRXlg&s=19

Spiritual_Chaos

What the fuck is VICE doing:



What has what Depp wrote to a third party in a text, to do with her defaming him in public?

Spiritual_Chaos

So. Depp won 10.350.000 and Amber won 2.000.000 for one of the parts of  her counter-suit against Depps attourney. 

cincybearcat

Spiritual_Chaos said:

What the fuck is VICE doing:



What has what Depp wrote to a third party in a text, to do with her defaming him in public?

They are being dumb.  And probably hypocritical...cause I bet the same idiot that wrote that has a private text message with some over the top language, etc.

Spiritual_Chaos

Depp's statement:

https://twitter.com/eriqgardner/status/1532084833958207488?s=20&t=dlpKxSkEXcVylMhutrXoRQ

PJ_Soul

cblock4life said:

Poncier said:

dankind said:

Spiritual_Chaos said:

mickeyrat said:

Spiritual_Chaos said:

Such a weird system, having a long trial with professionals who have studied law and then throw it over to some ordinary people to interpret the law without any knowledge of it or experience with it.

I get the "idea" behind it. And I am not sure what a perfect system would be. But this is just weird.

the jury doesnt interept the law. they weigh the evidence given and witness credibility against the instructions given by the judge.

As I said, weird.

I am a US citizen, and I agree.

I will never serve on a jury. 

And it’s not because I’m too lazy or too busy or too important; it’s because I don’t have any faith in the way our justice system is structured.

I've always thought we should have a system of paid, professional jurors. Folks who are trained in the way the court system and trials work, so they have a solid understanding of evidence, reasonable doubt etc. I've been empaneled on a jury twice. Hated it both times.

I loved jury duty!  I would definitely attempt to be a paid professional juror if that job existed.  

It seems like a pretty risky profession, lol. The murder rate of professional jurors would be astronomical... So would the corruption rate. I definitely understand why professional jurors are not a thing.

PJ_Soul

cincybearcat said:

Spiritual_Chaos said:

What the fuck is VICE doing:



What has what Depp wrote to a third party in a text, to do with her defaming him in public?

They are being dumb.  And probably hypocritical...cause I bet the same idiot that wrote that has a private text message with some over the top language, etc.

Exactly. Ridiculous.

HughFreakingDillon

all about the clicks. truth be damned. 

Spiritual_Chaos

PJ_Soul said:

cblock4life said:

Poncier said:

dankind said:

Spiritual_Chaos said:

mickeyrat said:

Spiritual_Chaos said:

Such a weird system, having a long trial with professionals who have studied law and then throw it over to some ordinary people to interpret the law without any knowledge of it or experience with it.

I get the "idea" behind it. And I am not sure what a perfect system would be. But this is just weird.

the jury doesnt interept the law. they weigh the evidence given and witness credibility against the instructions given by the judge.

As I said, weird.

I am a US citizen, and I agree.

I will never serve on a jury. 

And it’s not because I’m too lazy or too busy or too important; it’s because I don’t have any faith in the way our justice system is structured.

I've always thought we should have a system of paid, professional jurors. Folks who are trained in the way the court system and trials work, so they have a solid understanding of evidence, reasonable doubt etc. I've been empaneled on a jury twice. Hated it both times.

I loved jury duty!  I would definitely attempt to be a paid professional juror if that job existed.  

It seems like a pretty risky profession, lol. The murder rate of professional jurors would be astronomical... So would the corruption rate. I definitely understand why professional jurors are not a thing.

Sweden has paid legal professionals and appointed layman jurors. I don’t think the murder rate is astronomical. 

There are no juries in the Swedish courts; the following roles play a part in proceedings

There are two parties to the trial: the prosecutor and the defendant. The defendant may be entitled to a public defence counsel, generally referred to as a defence lawyer. If there is one or more injured parties, victims of the crime, they may be entitled to their own counsel.

It is for the court to decide whether the prosecutor’s evidence is sufficient to convict the defendant.

In district courts, the court consists of one legally-qualified, presiding judge and, usually, three lay judges. Lay judges do not have legal training. Cases before the courts of appeal are heard by a panel consisting of three legally-qualified judges, one of whom presides, and, usually, two lay judges.

PJ_Soul

It would be in the US!

bootlegger10

PJ_Soul said:

cblock4life said:

Poncier said:

dankind said:

Spiritual_Chaos said:

mickeyrat said:

Spiritual_Chaos said:

Such a weird system, having a long trial with professionals who have studied law and then throw it over to some ordinary people to interpret the law without any knowledge of it or experience with it.

I get the "idea" behind it. And I am not sure what a perfect system would be. But this is just weird.

the jury doesnt interept the law. they weigh the evidence given and witness credibility against the instructions given by the judge.

As I said, weird.

I am a US citizen, and I agree.

I will never serve on a jury. 

And it’s not because I’m too lazy or too busy or too important; it’s because I don’t have any faith in the way our justice system is structured.

I've always thought we should have a system of paid, professional jurors. Folks who are trained in the way the court system and trials work, so they have a solid understanding of evidence, reasonable doubt etc. I've been empaneled on a jury twice. Hated it both times.

I loved jury duty!  I would definitely attempt to be a paid professional juror if that job existed.  

It seems like a pretty risky profession, lol. The murder rate of professional jurors would be astronomical... So would the corruption rate. I definitely understand why professional jurors are not a thing.

If we had more good people armed with guns then I don't think it would be a problem.

HughFreakingDillon

Spiritual_Chaos said:

PJ_Soul said:

cblock4life said:

Poncier said:

dankind said:

Spiritual_Chaos said:

mickeyrat said:

Spiritual_Chaos said:

Such a weird system, having a long trial with professionals who have studied law and then throw it over to some ordinary people to interpret the law without any knowledge of it or experience with it.

I get the "idea" behind it. And I am not sure what a perfect system would be. But this is just weird.

the jury doesnt interept the law. they weigh the evidence given and witness credibility against the instructions given by the judge.

As I said, weird.

I am a US citizen, and I agree.

I will never serve on a jury. 

And it’s not because I’m too lazy or too busy or too important; it’s because I don’t have any faith in the way our justice system is structured.

I've always thought we should have a system of paid, professional jurors. Folks who are trained in the way the court system and trials work, so they have a solid understanding of evidence, reasonable doubt etc. I've been empaneled on a jury twice. Hated it both times.

I loved jury duty!  I would definitely attempt to be a paid professional juror if that job existed.  

It seems like a pretty risky profession, lol. The murder rate of professional jurors would be astronomical... So would the corruption rate. I definitely understand why professional jurors are not a thing.

Sweden has paid legal professionals and appointed layman jurors. I don’t think the murder rate is astronomical. 

There are no juries in the Swedish courts; the following roles play a part in proceedings

There are two parties to the trial: the prosecutor and the defendant. The defendant may be entitled to a public defence counsel, generally referred to as a defence lawyer. If there is one or more injured parties, victims of the crime, they may be entitled to their own counsel.

It is for the court to decide whether the prosecutor’s evidence is sufficient to convict the defendant.

In district courts, the court consists of one legally-qualified, presiding judge and, usually, three lay judges. Lay judges do not have legal training. Cases before the courts of appeal are heard by a panel consisting of three legally-qualified judges, one of whom presides, and, usually, two lay judges.

apples and rakmacka

Cropduster-80

bootlegger10 said:

PJ_Soul said:

cblock4life said:

Poncier said:

dankind said:

Spiritual_Chaos said:

mickeyrat said:

Spiritual_Chaos said:

Such a weird system, having a long trial with professionals who have studied law and then throw it over to some ordinary people to interpret the law without any knowledge of it or experience with it.

I get the "idea" behind it. And I am not sure what a perfect system would be. But this is just weird.

the jury doesnt interept the law. they weigh the evidence given and witness credibility against the instructions given by the judge.

As I said, weird.

I am a US citizen, and I agree.

I will never serve on a jury. 

And it’s not because I’m too lazy or too busy or too important; it’s because I don’t have any faith in the way our justice system is structured.

I've always thought we should have a system of paid, professional jurors. Folks who are trained in the way the court system and trials work, so they have a solid understanding of evidence, reasonable doubt etc. I've been empaneled on a jury twice. Hated it both times.

I loved jury duty!  I would definitely attempt to be a paid professional juror if that job existed.  

It seems like a pretty risky profession, lol. The murder rate of professional jurors would be astronomical... So would the corruption rate. I definitely understand why professional jurors are not a thing.

If we had more good people armed with guns then I don't think it would be a problem.

If there were more people with guns then there would be less defamation lawsuits.

something tells me those get settled out of court. Probably duels 

Spiritual_Chaos

Cropduster-80 said:

bootlegger10 said:

PJ_Soul said:

cblock4life said:

Poncier said:

dankind said:

Spiritual_Chaos said:

mickeyrat said:

Spiritual_Chaos said:

Such a weird system, having a long trial with professionals who have studied law and then throw it over to some ordinary people to interpret the law without any knowledge of it or experience with it.

I get the "idea" behind it. And I am not sure what a perfect system would be. But this is just weird.

the jury doesnt interept the law. they weigh the evidence given and witness credibility against the instructions given by the judge.

As I said, weird.

I am a US citizen, and I agree.

I will never serve on a jury. 

And it’s not because I’m too lazy or too busy or too important; it’s because I don’t have any faith in the way our justice system is structured.

I've always thought we should have a system of paid, professional jurors. Folks who are trained in the way the court system and trials work, so they have a solid understanding of evidence, reasonable doubt etc. I've been empaneled on a jury twice. Hated it both times.

I loved jury duty!  I would definitely attempt to be a paid professional juror if that job existed.  

It seems like a pretty risky profession, lol. The murder rate of professional jurors would be astronomical... So would the corruption rate. I definitely understand why professional jurors are not a thing.

If we had more good people armed with guns then I don't think it would be a problem.

If there were more people with guns then there would be less defamation lawsuits.

something tells me those get settled out of court. Probably duels 

Great Ridley Scott film.