New OOTS products from CafePress
New OOTS t-shirts, ornaments, mugs, bags, and more
Page 4 of 4 FirstFirst 1234
Results 91 to 117 of 117
  1. - Top - End - #91
    Dragon in the Playground Moderator
     
    Peelee's Avatar

    Join Date
    Dec 2009
    Location
    Washington D.C.
    Gender
    Male

    Default Re: My Thoughts On Johnny Depp And Amber Heard Domestic Violence Situation

    Quote Originally Posted by Bartmanhomer View Post
    What? Really? Get out of town!
    Gross oversimplifications for the purpose of demonstration:

    Case one: You own a ball. Bob steals your ball, puts it in his house, and locks the door. You steal your ball back. You have now most likely committed breaking and entering as well as burglary.

    Case two: You own a ball. Bob steals your ball. The next day you see Bob with your ball so you take it back. A cop sees you do this. You are arrested and jailed pending trial. You may get acquired at trial, but that did not stop you from getting arrested and jailed.

    But yeah. Don't assume that just because you're stealing your own thing back that it's legal of that you won't get in trouble for it. Neither of those are necessarily true.
    Cuthalion's art is the prettiest art of all the art. Like my avatar.

    Number of times Roland St. Jude has sworn revenge upon me: 2

  2. - Top - End - #92
    Titan in the Playground
     
    DrowGuy

    Join Date
    Dec 2015

    Default Re: My Thoughts On Johnny Depp And Amber Heard Domestic Violence Situation

    Quote Originally Posted by Peelee View Post
    Gross oversimplifications for demonstration:

    Case one: You own a ball. Bob steals your ball, puts it in his house, and locks the door. You steal your ball back. You have now most likely committed breaking as well as burglary.

    Case two: You own a ball. Bob steals your ball. The next day you see Bob with your ball so you take it back. A cop sees you do this. You are arrested and jailed pending trial. You may get acquired at trial, but that did not stop you from getting arrested and jailed.

    But yeah. Don't assume that just because you're stealing your own thing back that it's legal that you won't get in trouble for it. Neither of those is necessarily true.
    Ooooooh, I see what you mean.
    It's time to get my Magikarp on!

  3. - Top - End - #93
    Banned
    Join Date
    Apr 2015

    Default Re: My Thoughts On Johnny Depp And Amber Heard Domestic Violence Situation

    Quote Originally Posted by Rynjin View Post
    Legally speaking, can you even "steal" your own property in the first place? It belongs to you. Particularly with something like a car which has legal documentation PROVING you own it.
    I think that most laws stemming from common law theft/larceny probably still keep some variation of "taking the property of another" as an element of the crime, so the simple answer is "probably no, in most places."

    Like you mention, there are a ton of incidental crimes you'd be committing, and except for an extremely limited range of circumstances, "I own that and I was getting it back" isn't a legal excuse or justification.

    There's another consideration that might complicate things, though: Since there are plenty of situations where you can own something, but can authorize someone else to possess it (even exclusively), the law has evolved in some places to take that into consideration. For example, early caselaw for crimes such as trespass and burglary generally speak in terms of property owned by another--however, in modern civil and criminal law, if you're a landlord and you act outside the scope of whatever rights you retain in the contract, then you could legally commit either of those crimes on your own property. In general, stealing things doesn't get you authorization to possess the thing you stole, any more than it gets you valid title over it--however, it wouldn't surprise me if there's some state somewhere that has some theft or theft-like law constructed broadly enough to get you into trouble. This would be especially bad for you if it applies to some robbery-like law, since adding the element of intent to steal to whatever force you used to get your stuff back tends to get you into a lot more trouble.

  4. - Top - End - #94
    Firbolg in the Playground
     
    Talakeal's Avatar

    Join Date
    Sep 2009
    Location
    Denver.
    Gender
    Male

    Default Re: My Thoughts On Johnny Depp And Amber Heard Domestic Violence Situation

    Quote Originally Posted by dps View Post
    I knew that in the US, the truth of a slander or libel is an absolute defense, but it's a positive defense, meaning that the onus is on the party raising the defense to prove that the allegedly defamatory statement was indeed the truth.
    It is my understanding that this is false; in the US the burden of proof is upon the party seeking damages to prove that the story was false.
    Looking for feedback on Heart of Darkness, a character driven RPG of Gothic fantasy.

  5. - Top - End - #95
    Dragon in the Playground Moderator
     
    Peelee's Avatar

    Join Date
    Dec 2009
    Location
    Washington D.C.
    Gender
    Male

    Default Re: My Thoughts On Johnny Depp And Amber Heard Domestic Violence Situation

    Quote Originally Posted by Talakeal View Post
    It is my understanding that this is false; in the US the burden of proof is upon the party seeking damages to prove that the story was false.
    I claim that Bob punched a kitten. Bob sues for libel. How exactly could Bob prove that he has never punched a kitten?
    Last edited by Peelee; 2020-11-29 at 08:56 PM.
    Cuthalion's art is the prettiest art of all the art. Like my avatar.

    Number of times Roland St. Jude has sworn revenge upon me: 2

  6. - Top - End - #96
    Banned
    Join Date
    Apr 2015

    Default Re: My Thoughts On Johnny Depp And Amber Heard Domestic Violence Situation

    Quote Originally Posted by Peelee View Post
    I claim that Bob punched a kitten. Bob sues for libel. How exactly could Bob prove that he has never punched a kitten?
    The thing to remember is that "evidence" as a legal term differs from lay use because the law explicitly recognizes testimonial evidence as falling under that umbrella; in contrast, often when lay people demand "evidence" outside of a courtroom situation, they implicitly mean "proof of that what you're saying is true, beyond me just taking your word for it."

    To even file a defamation suit, you have to allege that the elements of the cause of action all apply; on top of that, you have to allege specific facts supporting each of those elements. For defamation, one key element is a false statement purporting to be factually true. To support that element, you generally have to allege "defendant said this" and "this isn't true." This is something you do at the beginning of the lawsuit in the complaint, essentially the document where you tell the court and the defendant the legal basis on which you're suing, and the facts supporting that legal basis. This isn't sworn testimony, and it doesn't have to be a concrete case--for example, under circumstances where key evidence is entirely controlled by the defendant, it would likely be sufficient to say that you believe certain facts to be true and expect evidence to turn up on discovery. However, the plaintiff and his attorney are expected to only make allegations in the complaint that they believe to be true, so by even filing a defamation suit, the plaintiff is effectively asserting that the defendant made false statements.

    Once you get to trial, the burden of proof is indeed on the plaintiff to provide evidence supporting everything he said in the complaint--including the falsity of the statements in question. However, testimonial evidence (i.e., the plaintiff swearing under oath that he's never punched a kitten) is more than enough to satisfy this requirement. This is where you get to the point where truth is effectively an affirmative defense, even though technically it's only refuting a key element of the lawsuit: In practice, you're going to have to come up with enough evidence that the plaintiff punched a kitten that they're willing to conclude that the plaintiff lied under oath.

    Generally, when you're talking about affirmative defenses--especially in criminal cases--they are distinct in that the burden of proof falls upon you to prove something. A conventional defense means undermining the prosecution, and if the prosecution is poor enough to begin with, then you should theoretically be able to prevail even if the defense rests immediately. In a defamation case, in theory you don't have to offer anything in your own defense if the plaintiff fails to prove their case to begin with. However, the initial burden of proof for the falsity element is so miniscule that in practice, there's no way a defendant can have knock it out unless they bring some sort of evidence to the table.

  7. - Top - End - #97
    Ogre in the Playground
     
    DrowGirl

    Join Date
    Mar 2016

    Default Re: My Thoughts On Johnny Depp And Amber Heard Domestic Violence Situation

    Quote Originally Posted by Peelee View Post
    I claim that Bob punched a kitten. Bob sues for libel. How exactly could Bob prove that he has never punched a kitten?
    By testifying that he has never punched a kitten.

    Quote Originally Posted by Rynjin View Post
    Legally speaking, can you even "steal" your own property in the first place? It belongs to you. Particularly with something like a car which has legal documentation PROVING you own it.

    You may potentially be committing other crimes in the process of retrieving your property (such as breaking and entering, trespassing, etc.), but not theft. I know they say possession is 9/10ths of the law and all, but I wouldn't think that would be taken too literally in a situation like that.
    Where I am from, usually you cannot. Theft requires you take property without claim of right with the intent of depriving an owner of that property. So if it belongs to you and nobody else then you are no depriving another owner of it.

    It would get more complicated where the property was owned by more than one person (as it may be in a marriage, since we are talking in the context of Heard/Depp) then it would come down to whether one person had the right to deprive the other of the thing.

    How far you are entitled to go to retrieve your property would depend heavily on the circumstances. Where I am from, you are allowed to trespass to retrieve your property where it is reasonable to do so.

  8. - Top - End - #98
    Dragon in the Playground Moderator
     
    Peelee's Avatar

    Join Date
    Dec 2009
    Location
    Washington D.C.
    Gender
    Male

    Default Re: My Thoughts On Johnny Depp And Amber Heard Domestic Violence Situation

    Quote Originally Posted by Xyril View Post
    The thing to remember is that "evidence" as a legal term differs from lay use because the law explicitly recognizes testimonial evidence as falling under that umbrella; in contrast, often when lay people demand "evidence" outside of a courtroom situation, they implicitly mean "proof of that what you're saying is true, beyond me just taking your word for it."

    To even file a defamation suit, you have to allege that the elements of the cause of action all apply; on top of that, you have to allege specific facts supporting each of those elements. For defamation, one key element is a false statement purporting to be factually true. To support that element, you generally have to allege "defendant said this" and "this isn't true." This is something you do at the beginning of the lawsuit in the complaint, essentially the document where you tell the court and the defendant the legal basis on which you're suing, and the facts supporting that legal basis. This isn't sworn testimony, and it doesn't have to be a concrete case--for example, under circumstances where key evidence is entirely controlled by the defendant, it would likely be sufficient to say that you believe certain facts to be true and expect evidence to turn up on discovery. However, the plaintiff and his attorney are expected to only make allegations in the complaint that they believe to be true, so by even filing a defamation suit, the plaintiff is effectively asserting that the defendant made false statements.

    Once you get to trial, the burden of proof is indeed on the plaintiff to provide evidence supporting everything he said in the complaint--including the falsity of the statements in question. However, testimonial evidence (i.e., the plaintiff swearing under oath that he's never punched a kitten) is more than enough to satisfy this requirement. This is where you get to the point where truth is effectively an affirmative defense, even though technically it's only refuting a key element of the lawsuit: In practice, you're going to have to come up with enough evidence that the plaintiff punched a kitten that they're willing to conclude that the plaintiff lied under oath.

    Generally, when you're talking about affirmative defenses--especially in criminal cases--they are distinct in that the burden of proof falls upon you to prove something. A conventional defense means undermining the prosecution, and if the prosecution is poor enough to begin with, then you should theoretically be able to prevail even if the defense rests immediately. In a defamation case, in theory you don't have to offer anything in your own defense if the plaintiff fails to prove their case to begin with. However, the initial burden of proof for the falsity element is so miniscule that in practice, there's no way a defendant can have knock it out unless they bring some sort of evidence to the table.
    Correct me if I'm wrong, but civil suits rely on a preponderance of evidence, so the plaintiff saying "nuh uh" and the defendend saying "yuh huh" does not really come out with a preponderance of evidence that the the plaintiff did not do it.
    Cuthalion's art is the prettiest art of all the art. Like my avatar.

    Number of times Roland St. Jude has sworn revenge upon me: 2

  9. - Top - End - #99
    Ogre in the Playground
     
    DrowGirl

    Join Date
    Mar 2016

    Default Re: My Thoughts On Johnny Depp And Amber Heard Domestic Violence Situation

    Quote Originally Posted by Peelee View Post
    Correct me if I'm wrong, but civil suits rely on a preponderance of evidence, so the plaintiff saying "nuh uh" and the defendend saying "yuh huh" does not really come out with a preponderance of evidence that the the plaintiff did not do it.
    It is often the case that you have conflicting testimony and the court decides which is more credible on the balance of probabilities (or the preponderance of the evidence as you put it). Sometimes it will be assisted by other evidence - like an autopsy of the kitten saying it was killed by a heavy blow, but sometimes it will just be one person's word against another.

    This is particularly relevant to domestic violence, because that is often one person's word against another. Sometimes (like Heard Depp) you have other people around, and all sorts of texts and emails talking about it. But often it is just the two people involved who are able to give evidence. That's a problem in criminal cases (which require proof beyond aa reasonable doubt), but less so when proving the truth of a defamation.

    Edit: But ultimately what you say is possible. It rarely happens in practice, but the court might find that the evidence is so finely balanced that one side cannot be preferred to the other - if it's truly 50/50. In that case the party that bears the onus loses. So where truth is advanced as a defence, the party advancing it would lose if the court simply could find that the burden had been overcome.
    Last edited by Liquor Box; 2020-11-29 at 10:52 PM.

  10. - Top - End - #100
    Dragon in the Playground Moderator
     
    Peelee's Avatar

    Join Date
    Dec 2009
    Location
    Washington D.C.
    Gender
    Male

    Default Re: My Thoughts On Johnny Depp And Amber Heard Domestic Violence Situation

    Quote Originally Posted by Liquor Box View Post
    It is often the case that you have conflicting testimony and the court decides which is more credible on the balance of probabilities (or the preponderance of the evidence as you put it). Sometimes it will be assisted by other evidence - like an autopsy of the kitten saying it was killed by a heavy blow, but sometimes it will just be one person's word against another.

    This is particularly relevant to domestic violence, because that is often one person's word against another. Sometimes (like Heard Depp) you have other people around, and all sorts of texts and emails talking about it. But often it is just the two people involved who are able to give evidence. That's a problem in criminal cases (which require proof beyond aa reasonable doubt), but less so when proving the truth of a defamation.
    My understanding is that "beyond reasonable doubt" is like 95% sure while preponderance of evidence is like 51%. Ish. I realize numbers are not really reliable but that gets the gist.
    Cuthalion's art is the prettiest art of all the art. Like my avatar.

    Number of times Roland St. Jude has sworn revenge upon me: 2

  11. - Top - End - #101
    Ogre in the Playground
     
    DrowGirl

    Join Date
    Mar 2016

    Default Re: My Thoughts On Johnny Depp And Amber Heard Domestic Violence Situation

    Quote Originally Posted by Peelee View Post
    My understanding is that "beyond reasonable doubt" is like 95% sure while preponderance of evidence is like 51%. Ish. I realize numbers are not really reliable but that gets the gist.
    Preponderance of the evidence is an American term, and I am not familiar with the case law, but my understanding is that it is simply another way of saying 'on the balance of probabilities' (which is the term used in other common law countries). But you are right it is 51%, or anything above 50%.

    Where i am from the Court has cautioned against a numerical value of "beyond reasonable doubt". But I expect you would have to be far more than 95% sure. There is less than a 5% chance that a given house will burn down in the next year, but people must have reasonable doubt or they would not pay for insurance. There are a number of ways of articulating it, but in essence it means that you are near certain that you are right, such that any doubts are slight and unreasonable.
    Last edited by Liquor Box; 2020-11-29 at 10:59 PM.

  12. - Top - End - #102
    Banned
    Join Date
    Apr 2015

    Default Re: My Thoughts On Johnny Depp And Amber Heard Domestic Violence Situation

    Quote Originally Posted by Peelee View Post
    Correct me if I'm wrong, but civil suits rely on a preponderance of evidence, so the plaintiff saying "nuh uh" and the defendend saying "yuh huh" does not really come out with a preponderance of evidence that the the plaintiff did not do it.
    Honestly, I don't recall if there's any precedent specifically addressing the issue of whether a 50% tie goes to the defendant or the plaintiff in this particular case. As a general principle, the burden of proof goes to the plaintiff--so 50% is generally in favor of the defendant, except with respect to some defenses which specifically fall on the defendant to prove. In theory, because every element is essential to the cause of action, then I suppose you could think of it as chaining probabilities: In other words, if the jury believes that it's a coin toss whether you've proven false statement, then at most there is a 50% chance that your entire case is good (assuming you've proven every other element beyond any reasonable doubt, or the defense admitted or stipulated to some of them.) There might be precedent or regs in some places that treat truth more like an affirmative defense and put the >50% burden on the defendant for that particular element--I haven't seen any, but it's certainly possible.

    In practice, this is all very abstract and esoteric: The jury doesn't usually find two witnesses precisely equal in credibility, and the likelihood that they'll actually break down each element of the case as individual, independent probability events based on the evidence presented for each element is almost non-existence. In practice what will happen is that the plaintiff will present evidence for everything. Even if the only evidence directly addressing whether the statements in question are true are the uncorroborated testimony of the plaintiff and the defendant, there will most likely be a lot of back and forth on other issues like damages and malice. Through all of this, the jury will form opinions about how generally credible and sympathetic each side is. If the plaintiff presents other witnesses and other corroborating evidence on the other elements, this will influence how the jury view credibility on the issue of truth, even if they're instructed not to. If the plaintiff presents a strong case as a whole, and the defendant focuses entirely on showing that it's entirely "he said, she said" on the issue of truth, most juries won't fixate on splitting that particular hair: They will be swayed by the strength of the overall case, and that will influence how they view the credibility of the plaintiff as a witness. This is why bolstering is so strictly limited by the rules of evidence.

    Also, if the defense makes any meaningful effort to prove that the statements in question are true, then there's pretty much zero chance that the plaintiffs would let their case stand entirely on the plaintiff testifying that it wasn't true. They would cross examine the defendant, getting every detail they can about when they saw the alleged cat kicking. Not only would they recall the plaintiff as a witness, in order to exploit any issues raised by the defendant's testimony, they would use every detail raised by the defendant as an opening to bring in more witnesses. If the defendant claims that he saw the kitten getting kicked while taking a walk in the plaintiff's gated community, then the plaintiff might call neighbors or guards to testify that they didn't see the defendant, or any other strangers, walking around on that day. If the defendant says that the plaintiff kicked a kitten to death and left him in the street, then the plaintiff can bring in police reports, or witnesses testifying that no kittens went missing within miles of the alleged kitten murder, and that nobody noticed a dead kitten rotting in the street. Meanwhile, with every witness called for the plaintiffs, the attorneys will try everything they can to effectively bolster their guy's credibility and character. You generally can't ask a question just to have a witness talk about what an honest, non-kitten-kicking guy your plaintiff is. However, once the defendant has told his story in detail, he generally brings up a lot of details that are relevant to the credibility of his specific testimony--something that's usually fair game. Smart attorneys will exploit testimony addressing these issues by framing it to tangentially bolster their own witnesses. For example, if the defendant claims he saw the plaintiff punch a kitten on a certain day and leave it bleeding in the street, the plaintiff can call a neighbor to testify that he jogs past the alleged punching site every day and has never seen a dead kitten, or any sign of blood. Then you ask whether the jogger has ever seen signs of a dead kitten.

    In many places, it can be challenging to just bring in a parade of friends and neighbors to testify that they've known you for years and that they've never known you to punch kittens. However, once the defendant has committed himself to some sworn version of events, he often opens the door to bring in a lot of witnesses who can do precisely that. This means that if a case looks like it will effectively hinge on one man's word against another's, it will almost never stay in that state. Barring extraordinary circumstances (i.e., the events in question happened in a pocket universe with only the two witnesses around), only two things would prevent the plaintiff from aggressively pushing back against any sort of defense: lack of resources, or lack of will. The nature of defamation law in the U.S. means that folks who fit either category rarely file defamation suits to begin with.

  13. - Top - End - #103
    Ogre in the Playground
     
    DrowGirl

    Join Date
    Mar 2016

    Default Re: My Thoughts On Johnny Depp And Amber Heard Domestic Violence Situation

    Quote Originally Posted by Xyril View Post
    Spoiler: For length
    Show
    Honestly, I don't recall if there's any precedent specifically addressing the issue of whether a 50% tie goes to the defendant or the plaintiff in this particular case. As a general principle, the burden of proof goes to the plaintiff--so 50% is generally in favor of the defendant, except with respect to some defenses which specifically fall on the defendant to prove. In theory, because every element is essential to the cause of action, then I suppose you could think of it as chaining probabilities: In other words, if the jury believes that it's a coin toss whether you've proven false statement, then at most there is a 50% chance that your entire case is good (assuming you've proven every other element beyond any reasonable doubt, or the defense admitted or stipulated to some of them.) There might be precedent or regs in some places that treat truth more like an affirmative defense and put the >50% burden on the defendant for that particular element--I haven't seen any, but it's certainly possible.

    In practice, this is all very abstract and esoteric: The jury doesn't usually find two witnesses precisely equal in credibility, and the likelihood that they'll actually break down each element of the case as individual, independent probability events based on the evidence presented for each element is almost non-existence. In practice what will happen is that the plaintiff will present evidence for everything. Even if the only evidence directly addressing whether the statements in question are true are the uncorroborated testimony of the plaintiff and the defendant, there will most likely be a lot of back and forth on other issues like damages and malice. Through all of this, the jury will form opinions about how generally credible and sympathetic each side is. If the plaintiff presents other witnesses and other corroborating evidence on the other elements, this will influence how the jury view credibility on the issue of truth, even if they're instructed not to. If the plaintiff presents a strong case as a whole, and the defendant focuses entirely on showing that it's entirely "he said, she said" on the issue of truth, most juries won't fixate on splitting that particular hair: They will be swayed by the strength of the overall case, and that will influence how they view the credibility of the plaintiff as a witness. This is why bolstering is so strictly limited by the rules of evidence.
    I'm not sure if you are talking about some overseas jurisdiction, but for the purpose of the Depp/Sun trial the onus was very clearly on the defendant to prove its truth defence. The judge says so from para 40:
    The defence of truth: the burden and standard of proof
    40. As Defamation Act 2013 s.2(1) makes clear, it is for a defendant to prove that the libel
    was substantially true. The burden of proof therefore rests on the defendant. That was
    also the case when the common law defence of justification existed.
    41. As for the standard of proof, the starting point is that these are civil proceedings and in
    civil proceedings the standard of proof is the balance of probabilities i.e. is it more
    probable than not that the article was substantially true in the meaning that it bore? In
    this case, is it more likely than not that the claimant did what the articles alleged?
    You also reference a jury. The trial was before a judge, and it did not have a jury. Trials before judges do sometimes (although not commonly) turn on the onus. In other words, judges have explicitly said that they cannot say whether a thing has or has not happened and made a finding accordingly.

    I'm not sure I properly understood what you mean by chaining probabilities. But if I am reading it right, then it doesn't work like that. If a plaintiff is unable to establish one necessary element of its case to the prescribed standard, then the case fails.

    Another small point, which I didn't mention at the time, but will now. On the previous page you talked about the law caring who started it (including in UK). That is sort of true if one were applying the criminal defences of self defence or provocation. But it is not relevant in this case, which is not about whether Depp was criminally guilty of a violent offence, but instead about whether the description "wife beater" (as it would be understood by the public) was accurate.

  14. - Top - End - #104
    Firbolg in the Playground
     
    Flumph

    Join Date
    Apr 2011
    Gender
    Male

    Default Re: My Thoughts On Johnny Depp And Amber Heard Domestic Violence Situation

    Quote Originally Posted by Talakeal View Post
    It is my understanding that this is false; in the US the burden of proof is upon the party seeking damages to prove that the story was false.
    It’s actually more than that. In the US the party seeking damages has to prove that the statement was either knowingly false or made with reckless disregard for the truth. (Not just that it is false but that the defendant knew or should have known that it was)

    If the plaintiff is also a public figure they need to also show that it was made with defamatory intent to cause specific harm (the Actual Malice standard)

    The UK is a much more plaintiff friendly regime for libel because the statement is assumed to be false and the defendant has to demonstrate that it is true (essentially a presumption of guilt). Which makes the UK a popular destination for Libel tourism because it is much easier for a plaintiff to prevail.

    That is also why UK libel judgements are unenforceable in the US.

  15. - Top - End - #105
    Ogre in the Playground
     
    DrowGirl

    Join Date
    Mar 2016

    Default Re: My Thoughts On Johnny Depp And Amber Heard Domestic Violence Situation

    Quote Originally Posted by GloatingSwine View Post
    It’s actually more than that. In the US the party seeking damages has to prove that the statement was either knowingly false or made with reckless disregard for the truth. (Not just that it is false but that the defendant knew or should have known that it was)

    If the plaintiff is also a public figure they need to also show that it was made with defamatory intent to cause specific harm (the Actual Malice standard)

    The UK is a much more plaintiff friendly regime for libel because the statement is assumed to be false and the defendant has to demonstrate that it is true (essentially a presumption of guilt). Which makes the UK a popular destination for Libel tourism because it is much easier for a plaintiff to prevail.

    That is also why UK libel judgements are unenforceable in the US.
    I think (although not certain) that's the case in every major common law jurisdiction except the US.

  16. - Top - End - #106
    Banned
    Join Date
    Apr 2015

    Default Re: My Thoughts On Johnny Depp And Amber Heard Domestic Violence Situation

    Quote Originally Posted by Liquor Box View Post
    I'm not sure if you are talking about some overseas jurisdiction, but for the purpose of the Depp/Sun trial the onus was very clearly on the defendant to prove its truth defence.
    I'm talking about U.S. jurisdiction, because it's what I know. I'm also talking about the abstract issue raised by Pelee and others I replied to, about whether truth is generally an affirmative defense.

    I would have expected you to infer from the context of the reply chains, and my choice of terminology, and the fact that I keep referencing Peelee's kitten punching hypothetical, and not the facts of the Depp case, that I was talking about that side-topic. Since you didn't, I've just told you explicitly now. If I'm still being unclear, I was replying to--and quoted--a post by Peelee. That post, in turn, was a response to--and quoted--this post (emphasis added)

    Quote Originally Posted by Talakeal View Post
    It is my understanding that this is false; in the US the burden of proof is upon the party seeking damages to prove that the story was false.
    When folks start threads about a specific topic, the conversation often grows organically and not entirely predictably. Sometimes this means the conversation shifts entirely; other times, this means a few side discussions pop up, exist in parallel with the original topic, and fade out on their own. In some instances, such as the Superman vs. Homelander thread, the conversation ends up narrowing in scope--in that case because most versions of Superman vs. Homelander produce such a one-sided fight that there's no potential for fun debate, but focusing on specific, less powerful incarnations allow for a sustained conversation. In most cases, however, conversations tend to grow in scope: Issues raised by the original topic prompt related topics that aren't quite different enough to spin off into a separate thread, nor do they completely supplant discussion of the original topic. I apologize for your confusion.

    As for the rest of your post, most of it wasn't really relevant to my post, since it's talking about how details off me talking about a hypothetical raised by the Depp case don't match the details of the Depp case--and I never asserted that they did.

    Also, regarding chaining probabilities--I know that's not how the law works. However, for people from a more qualitative background--and more generally, people who fixate on the idea of assigning probability values to "preponderance of the evidence," "clear and convincing evidence," and "beyond a reasonable doubt"--that line of reasoning is a natural one that nonetheless falls apart once you get into actual practice.

    In fact, the whole point was to point out that the purely logical/mathematical way of thinking of standard of proof in terms of probabilities tends to fall apart when you start breaking down the elements of a case. Apparently, I did a poor job articulating that point. If it wouldn't be too much trouble, would you mind reading that part of my previous post again, and letting me know where I lost you?
    Last edited by Xyril; 2020-11-30 at 02:48 PM.

  17. - Top - End - #107
    Ogre in the Playground
     
    DrowGirl

    Join Date
    Mar 2016

    Default Re: My Thoughts On Johnny Depp And Amber Heard Domestic Violence Situation

    Quote Originally Posted by Xyril View Post
    I'm talking about U.S. jurisdiction, because it's what I know. I'm also talking about the abstract issue raised by Pelee and others I replied to, about whether truth is generally an affirmative defense.

    I would have expected you to infer from the context of the reply chains, and my choice of terminology, and the fact that I keep referencing Peelee's kitten punching hypothetical, and not the facts of the Depp case, that I was talking about that side-topic. Since you didn't, I've just told you explicitly now. If I'm still being unclear, I was replying to--and quoted--a post by Peelee. That post, in turn, was a response to--and quoted--this post (emphasis added)



    When folks start threads about a specific topic, the conversation often grows organically and not entirely predictably. Sometimes this means the conversation shifts entirely; other times, this means a few side discussions pop up, exist in parallel with the original topic, and fade out on their own. In some instances, such as the Superman vs. Homelander thread, the conversation ends up narrowing in scope--in that case because most versions of Superman vs. Homelander produce such a one-sided fight that there's no potential for fun debate, but focusing on specific, less powerful incarnations allow for a sustained conversation. In most cases, however, conversations tend to grow in scope: Issues raised by the original topic prompt related topics that aren't quite different enough to spin off into a separate thread, nor do they completely supplant discussion of the original topic. I apologize for your confusion.

    As for the rest of your post, most of it wasn't really relevant to my post, since it's talking about how details off me talking about a hypothetical raised by the Depp case don't match the details of the Depp case--and I never asserted that they did.

    Also, regarding chaining probabilities--I know that's not how the law works. However, for people from a more qualitative background--and more generally, people who fixate on the idea of assigning probability values to "preponderance of the evidence," "clear and convincing evidence," and "beyond a reasonable doubt"--that line of reasoning is a natural one that nonetheless falls apart once you get into actual practice.

    In fact, the whole point was to point out that the purely logical/mathematical way of thinking of standard of proof in terms of probabilities tends to fall apart when you start breaking down the elements of a case. Apparently, I did a poor job articulating that point. If it wouldn't be too much trouble, would you mind reading that part of my previous post again, and letting me know where I lost you?
    Sure. I assumed the Bob and peelee story was based on UK, because that was the jurisdiction being discussed in the thread, hence why I said "I'm not sure if you are talking about some overseas jurisdiction, but for the purpose of the Depp/Sun trial...". You've now clarified you were talking about somewhere else, so that's fine.

  18. - Top - End - #108
    Titan in the Playground
     
    DrowGuy

    Join Date
    Dec 2015

    Default Re: My Thoughts On Johnny Depp And Amber Heard Domestic Violence Situation

    Quote Originally Posted by Xyril View Post
    I'm talking about U.S. jurisdiction, because it's what I know. I'm also talking about the abstract issue raised by Pelee and others I replied to, about whether truth is generally an affirmative defense.

    I would have expected you to infer from the context of the reply chains, and my choice of terminology, and the fact that I keep referencing Peelee's kitten punching hypothetical, and not the facts of the Depp case, that I was talking about that side-topic. Since you didn't, I've just told you explicitly now. If I'm still being unclear, I was replying to--and quoted--a post by Peelee. That post, in turn, was a response to--and quoted--this post (emphasis added)



    When folks start threads about a specific topic, the conversation often grows organically and not entirely predictably. Sometimes this means the conversation shifts entirely; other times, this means a few side discussions pop up, exist in parallel with the original topic, and fade out on their own. In some instances, such as the Superman vs. Homelander thread, the conversation ends up narrowing in scope--in that case because most versions of Superman vs. Homelander produce such a one-sided fight that there's no potential for fun debate, but focusing on specific, less powerful incarnations allow for a sustained conversation. In most cases, however, conversations tend to grow in scope: Issues raised by the original topic prompt related topics that aren't quite different enough to spin off into a separate thread, nor do they completely supplant discussion of the original topic. I apologize for your confusion.

    As for the rest of your post, most of it wasn't really relevant to my post, since it's talking about how details off me talking about a hypothetical raised by the Depp case don't match the details of the Depp case--and I never asserted that they did.

    Also, regarding chaining probabilities--I know that's not how the law works. However, for people from a more qualitative background--and more generally, people who fixate on the idea of assigning probability values to "preponderance of the evidence," "clear and convincing evidence," and "beyond a reasonable doubt"--that line of reasoning is a natural one that nonetheless falls apart once you get into actual practice.

    In fact, the whole point was to point out that the purely logical/mathematical way of thinking of standard of proof in terms of probabilities tends to fall apart when you start breaking down the elements of a case. Apparently, I did a poor job articulating that point. If it wouldn't be too much trouble, would you mind reading that part of my previous post again, and letting me know where I lost you?
    Not mentioned when people replied multiple quotes which usually indicates an argument such as the Dragonwrought Kobold threads.
    It's time to get my Magikarp on!

  19. - Top - End - #109
    Banned
    Join Date
    Apr 2015

    Default Re: My Thoughts On Johnny Depp And Amber Heard Domestic Violence Situation

    Quote Originally Posted by Liquor Box View Post
    Sure. I assumed the Bob and peelee story was based on UK, because that was the jurisdiction being discussed in the thread,
    Yes, and I was confounded by the assumption, because the post literally referenced "in the U.S." Glad we cleared that up.

  20. - Top - End - #110
    Troll in the Playground
     
    JadedDM's Avatar

    Join Date
    Mar 2006
    Location
    Washington, USA
    Gender
    Male

    Default Re: My Thoughts On Johnny Depp And Amber Heard Domestic Violence Situation

    An article dropped today at the Hollywood Reporter that does a pretty good job of summing up the entire thing, and including some new stuff I didn't know about--like that apparently Depp did try pretty hard to get Heard fired from Aquaman by pulling strings and calling in favors.

  21. - Top - End - #111
    Titan in the Playground
     
    Brother Oni's Avatar

    Join Date
    Nov 2007
    Location
    Cippa's River Meadow
    Gender
    Male

    Default Re: My Thoughts On Johnny Depp And Amber Heard Domestic Violence Situation

    Quote Originally Posted by Liquor Box View Post
    Where i am from the Court has cautioned against a numerical value of "beyond reasonable doubt". But I expect you would have to be far more than 95% sure. There is less than a 5% chance that a given house will burn down in the next year, but people must have reasonable doubt or they would not pay for insurance. There are a number of ways of articulating it, but in essence it means that you are near certain that you are right, such that any doubts are slight and unreasonable.
    Definitely not sure on the numbers. I once sat on a jury for an attempted armed robbery (guy tried to rob a checkout clerk with a knife) and we couldn't come to an unanimous decision. The judge then instructed us to come to a 'beyond reasonable doubt'* decision (>=10 jurors), which we then met.

    *I can't remember whether that was the exact term he used or one very similar like 'reasonably sure' - it was several years ago.

  22. - Top - End - #112
    Firbolg in the Playground
     
    Flumph

    Join Date
    Apr 2011
    Gender
    Male

    Default Re: My Thoughts On Johnny Depp And Amber Heard Domestic Violence Situation

    "Beyond reasonable doubt" is the point at which anyone still arguing otherwise is clearly reaching for tenuous nonsense.

  23. - Top - End - #113
    Pixie in the Playground
     
    inespie's Avatar

    Join Date
    Jan 2021

    Default Re: My Thoughts On Johnny Depp And Amber Heard Domestic Violence Situation

    Quote Originally Posted by GloatingSwine View Post
    "Beyond reasonable doubt" is the point at which anyone still arguing otherwise is clearly reaching for tenuous nonsense.
    On this affair, there is now a 132-page ruling on Depp's defamation claims, attesting for at least 12 instance of domestic violence, among others things, made after a three weeks trial and dozens of witness.
    And also he is a big risk during production.

    I mean.
    And while shooting Disney's Pirates of the Caribbean: Dead Men Tell No Tales in Australia, Depp swallowed eight ecstasy pills at once, according to testimony in the U.K. case, and embarked on a campaign of terror aimed at Heard. It culminated with the tip of his finger being sliced off, which resulted in his being flown back to Los Angeles for surgery. Pirates was forced to shut down production for two weeks, costing the studio some $350,000 a day. Depp claimed that Heard threw a bottle of alcohol at him, injuring his finger.
    If he can't keep together in a professional setting, and has a quite solid document saying he is a wife beater making a lot of noise, I understand why studios don't want to have anything to do with him.

    Ho, of course heath come have done some things we don't know about, but until now nothing that made it to a trial, while JD has proved to be quite lawyers prone.

    I thus don't understand the "bury them all" stance from the original poster.

  24. - Top - End - #114
    Firbolg in the Playground
     
    Vinyadan's Avatar

    Join Date
    Nov 2009
    Gender
    Male

    Default Re: My Thoughts On Johnny Depp And Amber Heard Domestic Violence Situation

    If anyone here has Netflix, is it true that it's pulling Depp's movies from the platform?
    Quote Originally Posted by J.R.R. Tolkien, 1955
    I thought Tom Bombadil dreadful — but worse still was the announcer's preliminary remarks that Goldberry was his daughter (!), and that Willowman was an ally of Mordor (!!).

  25. - Top - End - #115
    Firbolg in the Playground
     
    Flumph

    Join Date
    Apr 2011
    Gender
    Male

    Default Re: My Thoughts On Johnny Depp And Amber Heard Domestic Violence Situation

    No, at least not specifically.

    Netflix cycles content in and out as their distribution deals with copyright holders (Warner, Universal, et al) expire and are renegotiated. A number of deals that included movies with Depp in have recently expired and either aren't available to renegotiate because the holders want to use their own platforms instead or just don't have anything in Netflix think they can attract subscribers with.

    Johnny Depp hasn't been in any Netflix Originals, which are the only movies that have permanent distribution via Netflix.

  26. - Top - End - #116
    Librarian in the Playground Moderator
     
    LibraryOgre's Avatar

    Join Date
    Dec 2007
    Location
    San Antonio, Texas
    Gender
    Male

    Default Re: My Thoughts On Johnny Depp And Amber Heard Domestic Violence Situation

    And, if nothing else, Rango is on Netflix right now.
    The Cranky Gamer
    *It isn't realism, it's verisimilitude; the appearance of truth within the framework of the game.
    *Picard management tip: Debate honestly. The goal is to arrive at the truth, not at your preconception.
    *Mutant Dawn for Savage Worlds!
    *The One Deck Engine: Gaming on a budget
    Written by Me on DriveThru RPG
    There are almost 400,000 threads on this site. If you need me to address a thread as a moderator, include a link.

  27. - Top - End - #117
    Halfling in the Playground
     
    Daemon

    Join Date
    Jan 2021

    Default Re: My Thoughts On Johnny Depp And Amber Heard Domestic Violence Situation

    There does seem to be a lot of evidence that she was actually the abuser, or at least responsible for abuse as well. I doubt that anything will really happen to her in the long run. As sad as it is, there are double standards out there and frankly women just don't seem to face charges for this type of thing the same way that men do.

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •