Depp V Heard (Defamation lawsuit)

2»

Comments

  • dankinddankind I am not your foot. Posts: 20,826
    edited May 28
    mickeyrat 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 SAW PEARL JAM
  • lastexitlondonlastexitlondon Posts: 9,751
    When you  look at it . Its a little odd to do all that  then let just some ordinary people decide 
    brixton 93
    astoria 06
    albany 06
    hartford 06
    reading 06
    barcelona 06
    paris 06
    wembley 07
    dusseldorf 07
    nijmegen 07

    this song is meant to be called i got shit,itshould be called i got shit tickets-hartford 06 -
  • F Me In The BrainF Me In The Brain this knows everybody from other commetsPosts: 27,892
    edited May 28
    Most strange is that we allow assholes in movies with the highest priced lawyers to argue their cases, essentially in public.
    Fuck this guy.  I hope he pays.

    Also, civil trials have different rules than criminal ones.  Different levels / burdens of proof as well as many other differences. 

    I hate (wish there was a stronger word) that people pay so much attention to this shit when the world is burning all around us in so many ways.
    The love he receives is the love that is saved
  • PoncierPoncier Posts: 14,361
    dankind said:
    mickeyrat 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.
    This weekend we rock Portland
  • dankinddankind I am not your foot. Posts: 20,826
    Poncier said:
    dankind said:
    mickeyrat 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’ve always just told the person behind the counter exactly how I feel about the US justice system and been sent home. 

    I’m not lying to get out of it; I telling my truth to get out of it. 
    I SAW PEARL JAM
  • oftenreadingoftenreading Victoria, BCPosts: 12,779
    mickeyrat 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.


    Unfortunately, in practice they absolutely do interpret the law due to their imperfect understanding of those instructions from the judge as well as misunderstanding of the reliability of different types of evidence. Jury decisions can be baffling.
    my small self... like a book amongst the many on a shelf
  • cblock4lifecblock4life Posts: 918
    Poncier said:
    dankind said:
    mickeyrat 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.  
  • HughFreakingDillonHughFreakingDillon WinnipegPosts: 33,223
    mickeyrat 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.

    sure they do. they ask questions about the law to the judge all the time while in deliberations. they have to decide if someone is guilty based on the law of the land. their entire job is interpreting the law and if the person broke it or not. (at least in criminal trials)
    I think I'll move to Australia


  • HughFreakingDillonHughFreakingDillon WinnipegPosts: 33,223
    mickeyrat 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. it's law interpretation AND deciding if someone broke it or not based on testimony. it's half legal expert and half living lie detector test. 
    I think I'll move to Australia


  • HughFreakingDillonHughFreakingDillon WinnipegPosts: 33,223
    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. 
    I think I'll move to Australia


  • Spiritual_ChaosSpiritual_Chaos Posts: 26,853
    edited May 29
    mickeyrat 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...?
    Post edited by Spiritual_Chaos on
    "Mostly I think that people react sensitively because they know you’ve got a point"
  • Spiritual_ChaosSpiritual_Chaos Posts: 26,853
    edited May 29
    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?
    Post edited by Spiritual_Chaos on
    "Mostly I think that people react sensitively because they know you’ve got a point"
  • Spiritual_ChaosSpiritual_Chaos Posts: 26,853
    Depp played with Jeff Beck yesterday. 

    Jury meet up again tomorrow .
    "Mostly I think that people react sensitively because they know you’ve got a point"
  • BentleyspopBentleyspop Craft Beer Brewery, ColoradoPosts: 9,900
  • Spiritual_ChaosSpiritual_Chaos Posts: 26,853
    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?
    "Mostly I think that people react sensitively because they know you’ve got a point"
  • Spiritual_ChaosSpiritual_Chaos Posts: 26,853
    edited June 1
    So. Depp won 10.350.000 and Amber won 2.000.000 for one of the parts of  her counter-suit against Depps attourney. 
    "Mostly I think that people react sensitively because they know you’ve got a point"
  • cincybearcatcincybearcat Posts: 15,667
    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.
    hippiemom = goodness
  • Spiritual_ChaosSpiritual_Chaos Posts: 26,853
    "Mostly I think that people react sensitively because they know you’ve got a point"
  • PJ_SoulPJ_Soul Vancouver, BCPosts: 48,685
    Poncier said:
    dankind said:
    mickeyrat 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.
    With all its sham, drudgery, and broken dreams, it is still a beautiful world. Be careful. Strive to be happy. ~ Desiderata
  • PJ_SoulPJ_Soul Vancouver, BCPosts: 48,685
    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.
    With all its sham, drudgery, and broken dreams, it is still a beautiful world. Be careful. Strive to be happy. ~ Desiderata
  • HughFreakingDillonHughFreakingDillon WinnipegPosts: 33,223
    all about the clicks. truth be damned. 
    I think I'll move to Australia


  • Spiritual_ChaosSpiritual_Chaos Posts: 26,853
    PJ_Soul said:
    Poncier said:
    dankind said:
    mickeyrat 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.


    "Mostly I think that people react sensitively because they know you’ve got a point"
  • PJ_SoulPJ_Soul Vancouver, BCPosts: 48,685
    It would be in the US!

    With all its sham, drudgery, and broken dreams, it is still a beautiful world. Be careful. Strive to be happy. ~ Desiderata
  • bootlegger10bootlegger10 Posts: 14,826
    PJ_Soul said:
    Poncier said:
    dankind said:
    mickeyrat 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.
  • HughFreakingDillonHughFreakingDillon WinnipegPosts: 33,223
    PJ_Soul said:
    Poncier said:
    dankind said:
    mickeyrat 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
    I think I'll move to Australia


  • Cropduster-80Cropduster-80 Posts: 2,034
    edited June 2
    PJ_Soul said:
    Poncier said:
    dankind said:
    mickeyrat 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_ChaosSpiritual_Chaos Posts: 26,853
    PJ_Soul said:
    Poncier said:
    dankind said:
    mickeyrat 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.
    "Mostly I think that people react sensitively because they know you’ve got a point"
Sign In or Register to comment.