(02-21-2019 10:32 PM)Rice93 Wrote:  

(02-21-2019 09:50 PM)tanqtonic Wrote:  

(02-21-2019 09:19 PM)Rice93 Wrote:  

(02-19-2019 11:30 PM)OptimisticOwl Wrote:  

(02-19-2019 10:38 PM)tanqtonic Wrote:  I think that any number is way too small. With all respect, the differences between the 'reported' and the video, I hope Sandmann drains the hell out of many of the legal departments' budgets here.

And, it will be fun to see the people who called for him being physically assaulted on Twitter and elsewhere to be run through the legal meat grinder that is in motion here.

I know people that have dealt with and know the lead plaintiff's attorney here. I dont think 'having money' will be a distinction on filing suit in this instance.

I think the drum major in fact Nathan Phillips will get to know the Federal District filing clerk pretty well in the next short while.

Just meant no use drilling where there is no oil.

I hope Colbert and some Hollywood celebrities are in the line to pay.

And I hope that that a good portion of the proceeds are donated to the Trump campaign.

It will be interesting to see how this plays out. I'm no lawyer but I've read that the process of discovery for this manner of lawsuit could be quite invasive/potentially problematic for the teenager (searching through text/email history for evidence of prior racist behavior, etc.).

The process of discovery can be quite invasive no matter *who* the party is. I am sure the Washington Post will burn through abut 50-75k in discovery costs all by their lonesome. A lesson they will (re) learn.

Can be 'problematic'? Maybe. I dont know. I have nothing to judge or even imply Sandmann's supposed deep email racism on except your comments above. If the kid is a closet white pointy hat wearer, I guess we will find out. That is his (really his guardian's) explicit choice to make. Do you have any 'inside' information on this?

Quote:Can you sue a talking head who gives an opinion on a news story that later turns out to be (possibly) debunked?

The question is not 'can you sue', the question is 'can one win'? But the answer to both is yes. If the 'opinion' repeats facts that are untrue, then yes. And, the coverage from CNN 'opinion' people did appear to include recitations of the incident that were untrue when actually viewed away from the highly edited and chopped up versions shown.

Then you get to the Bill Maher type comments:

Quote:"I don't blame the kid, the smirk-face kid, I blame lead poisoning and bad parenting. And, oh yeah, I blame the f---ing kid, what a little prick.”

Quote:"Smirk face, like that's not a dick move at any age to stick your face in this elderly man, You know, I don't spend a lot of time, I must tell you, around Catholic school children, but I do not get what Catholic priests see in these kids.”

I find it very ironic (and hypocritical) for Bill Maher to be mouthing off about 'smirks', 'pricks', and 'dick moves' to be absolutely honest.

And even if Sandmann doesnt win on this angle, I for one will be rooting to see Maher explain this grotesque display of absolute vehemence against a 14 year old. Even if I do have to see the smug smirk on the prick's face as he does so. Those comments may not necessarily be actionable, but I have no problem having Maher pay 100k to extricate himself for lowering himself to attacking a 14 year old on his national podium. Especially in that mudpit type fashion. TFBFB (the last FB means For Bill) in my opinion.

(Honestly, I would really enjoy to see the smug smirk on Maher's lawyers face as *that* dude cashes the checks resulting from his client's comments above, among others.....)

No insider information. Just the idea that having to open up your text messages and emails for ANY teenager could be problematic. I'm no teenager but I wouldn't want MY text messages to my friends being reviewed. But they wouldn't find any racist stuff in mine. Will they find some racist leanings with this teenager who attends a school with a history of questionable race relations and attended a DC rally with his classmates in MAGA hats potentially itching for a confrontation? I guess we may find out.

What makes you think that the plaintiff would not have taken that very risk into account before filing suit?

(02-22-2019 12:12 PM)georgewebb Wrote:  

(02-21-2019 10:32 PM)Rice93 Wrote:  

(02-21-2019 09:50 PM)tanqtonic Wrote:  

(02-21-2019 09:19 PM)Rice93 Wrote:  

(02-19-2019 11:30 PM)OptimisticOwl Wrote:  Just meant no use drilling where there is no oil.

I hope Colbert and some Hollywood celebrities are in the line to pay.

And I hope that that a good portion of the proceeds are donated to the Trump campaign.

It will be interesting to see how this plays out. I'm no lawyer but I've read that the process of discovery for this manner of lawsuit could be quite invasive/potentially problematic for the teenager (searching through text/email history for evidence of prior racist behavior, etc.).

The process of discovery can be quite invasive no matter *who* the party is. I am sure the Washington Post will burn through abut 50-75k in discovery costs all by their lonesome. A lesson they will (re) learn.

Can be 'problematic'? Maybe. I dont know. I have nothing to judge or even imply Sandmann's supposed deep email racism on except your comments above. If the kid is a closet white pointy hat wearer, I guess we will find out. That is his (really his guardian's) explicit choice to make. Do you have any 'inside' information on this?

Quote:Can you sue a talking head who gives an opinion on a news story that later turns out to be (possibly) debunked?

The question is not 'can you sue', the question is 'can one win'? But the answer to both is yes. If the 'opinion' repeats facts that are untrue, then yes. And, the coverage from CNN 'opinion' people did appear to include recitations of the incident that were untrue when actually viewed away from the highly edited and chopped up versions shown.

Then you get to the Bill Maher type comments:

Quote:"I don't blame the kid, the smirk-face kid, I blame lead poisoning and bad parenting. And, oh yeah, I blame the f---ing kid, what a little prick.”

Quote:"Smirk face, like that's not a dick move at any age to stick your face in this elderly man, You know, I don't spend a lot of time, I must tell you, around Catholic school children, but I do not get what Catholic priests see in these kids.”

I find it very ironic (and hypocritical) for Bill Maher to be mouthing off about 'smirks', 'pricks', and 'dick moves' to be absolutely honest.

And even if Sandmann doesnt win on this angle, I for one will be rooting to see Maher explain this grotesque display of absolute vehemence against a 14 year old. Even if I do have to see the smug smirk on the prick's face as he does so. Those comments may not necessarily be actionable, but I have no problem having Maher pay 100k to extricate himself for lowering himself to attacking a 14 year old on his national podium. Especially in that mudpit type fashion. TFBFB (the last FB means For Bill) in my opinion.

(Honestly, I would really enjoy to see the smug smirk on Maher's lawyers face as *that* dude cashes the checks resulting from his client's comments above, among others.....)

No insider information. Just the idea that having to open up your text messages and emails for ANY teenager could be problematic. I'm no teenager but I wouldn't want MY text messages to my friends being reviewed. But they wouldn't find any racist stuff in mine. Will they find some racist leanings with this teenager who attends a school with a history of questionable race relations and attended a DC rally with his classmates in MAGA hats potentially itching for a confrontation? I guess we may find out.

What makes you think that the plaintiff would not have taken that very risk into account before filing suit?

I imagine they did. Seems like something their attorney should have made crystal-clear.

I wonder how this will play out. From what I've seen/read the video evidence doesn't seem to be conclusive. People are seeing what they want to see in terms of instigators/victims/bullies.

(02-22-2019 12:50 PM)Rice93 Wrote:  

(02-22-2019 12:12 PM)georgewebb Wrote:  

(02-21-2019 10:32 PM)Rice93 Wrote:  

(02-21-2019 09:50 PM)tanqtonic Wrote:  

(02-21-2019 09:19 PM)Rice93 Wrote:  It will be interesting to see how this plays out. I'm no lawyer but I've read that the process of discovery for this manner of lawsuit could be quite invasive/potentially problematic for the teenager (searching through text/email history for evidence of prior racist behavior, etc.).

The process of discovery can be quite invasive no matter *who* the party is. I am sure the Washington Post will burn through abut 50-75k in discovery costs all by their lonesome. A lesson they will (re) learn.

Can be 'problematic'? Maybe. I dont know. I have nothing to judge or even imply Sandmann's supposed deep email racism on except your comments above. If the kid is a closet white pointy hat wearer, I guess we will find out. That is his (really his guardian's) explicit choice to make. Do you have any 'inside' information on this?

Quote:Can you sue a talking head who gives an opinion on a news story that later turns out to be (possibly) debunked?

The question is not 'can you sue', the question is 'can one win'? But the answer to both is yes. If the 'opinion' repeats facts that are untrue, then yes. And, the coverage from CNN 'opinion' people did appear to include recitations of the incident that were untrue when actually viewed away from the highly edited and chopped up versions shown.

Then you get to the Bill Maher type comments:

Quote:"I don't blame the kid, the smirk-face kid, I blame lead poisoning and bad parenting. And, oh yeah, I blame the f---ing kid, what a little prick.”

Quote:"Smirk face, like that's not a dick move at any age to stick your face in this elderly man, You know, I don't spend a lot of time, I must tell you, around Catholic school children, but I do not get what Catholic priests see in these kids.”

I find it very ironic (and hypocritical) for Bill Maher to be mouthing off about 'smirks', 'pricks', and 'dick moves' to be absolutely honest.

And even if Sandmann doesnt win on this angle, I for one will be rooting to see Maher explain this grotesque display of absolute vehemence against a 14 year old. Even if I do have to see the smug smirk on the prick's face as he does so. Those comments may not necessarily be actionable, but I have no problem having Maher pay 100k to extricate himself for lowering himself to attacking a 14 year old on his national podium. Especially in that mudpit type fashion. TFBFB (the last FB means For Bill) in my opinion.

(Honestly, I would really enjoy to see the smug smirk on Maher's lawyers face as *that* dude cashes the checks resulting from his client's comments above, among others.....)

No insider information. Just the idea that having to open up your text messages and emails for ANY teenager could be problematic. I'm no teenager but I wouldn't want MY text messages to my friends being reviewed. But they wouldn't find any racist stuff in mine. Will they find some racist leanings with this teenager who attends a school with a history of questionable race relations and attended a DC rally with his classmates in MAGA hats potentially itching for a confrontation? I guess we may find out.

What makes you think that the plaintiff would not have taken that very risk into account before filing suit?

I imagine they did. Seems like something their attorney should have made crystal-clear.

I wonder how this will play out. From what I've seen/read the video evidence doesn't seem to be conclusive. People are seeing what they want to see in terms of instigators/victims/bullies.

I'm just glad Sandmann didnt say 'Nam was hell'. Now *that* would have been humorous.

And I will agree with you. There are a metric ton of people who view a MAGA hat, let alone any Trump paraphenalia, as a literal purveyance of hateful and bullying speech. And, that is not meant as compliment to them.

RE: "smirk-face". Some people's smiles just naturally come out as smirks. The person I think of as "smirk-face" is Adam Schiff. But a 16YO in an uncomfortable situation with an adult trying to smile and be nice might come off as smirky. If he committed a real crime, other than smiling at at an old man beating a drum in his face, he would be tried as a juvenile. Odd that nobody on the left is willing to give the kid the benefit of the doubt. Well, come to think of it, not that odd. But what I have seen of him in subsequent interviews makes me think he is a nice kid.

I have asked this before, with no response from anybody: if the kid was beating the drum in the face of a smiling native American, would everybody be mad at the smiler or at the drum beater?

What was the crime here? Was it the wearing of the MAGA hats?

Even coming down off a 'crime'...... what is the 'bullying' exhibited by Sandmann? What is the 'instigation' exhibited by Sandmann?

Somehow the deadly trio of 'smirking', 'standing', and wearing a MAGA hat is now the definition of "bullying" and/or "instigating". Notwithstanding it was Drum Man who chose to walk into the kids (who are standing there) and bleat on his percussion instrument a mere inch or couple of inches from someone's face.

It must be those feral packs of MAGA kids who roam the streets of DC looking for prey to feast on that have given Sandmann the raw edge of that scenario.

And, I would opine that if one chose to wear a MAGA hat at venue, say like Berkeley, odds are pretty good that one might be punched in the face. Like as happened day before yesterday to the guy who had the temerity to sit at a table in Berkeley commons with the unimaginably grotesque and spiteful sign stating "Hate crime hoaxes hurt real victims" and "this is MAGA country."

(02-22-2019 01:36 PM)tanqtonic Wrote:  Even coming down off a 'crime'...... what is the 'bullying' exhibited by Sandmann? What is the 'instigation' exhibited by Sandmann?

Somehow the deadly trio of 'smirking', 'standing', and wearing a MAGA hat is now the definition of "bullying" and/or "instigating". Notwithstanding it was Drum Man who chose to walk into the kids (who are standing there) and bleat on his percussion instrument a mere inch or couple of inches from someone's face.

It must be those feral packs of MAGA kids who roam the streets of DC looking for prey to feast on that have given Sandmann the raw edge of that scenario.

It was a very weird situation all around. The teens were being heckled by a radical black Israelite organization that is absolutely insane. The teens responded to those rather gross insults, and unfortunately not in a desecalatory manner. Then the drumming guy joined the fray, trying to deescalate it, but that failed. And then you have the smirking kid who, instead of backing down, just stayed in his spot, oddly smiling at the drumming guy a few inches away from him.

This entire situation is a perfect example of not only getting the whole story before jumping to conclusions and condemnation, and why it’s better to not give into provocateurs and give them what they wanted.

And while the media at large deserves criticism for how many wrote opinion pieces condemning the students, the fact that we know the entire story now is only because the media at large decided to tell the entire story once it came out.

(02-22-2019 01:36 PM)tanqtonic Wrote:  Even coming down off a 'crime'...... what is the 'bullying' exhibited by Sandmann? What is the 'instigation' exhibited by Sandmann?

Somehow the deadly trio of 'smirking', 'standing', and wearing a MAGA hat is now the definition of "bullying" and/or "instigating". Notwithstanding it was Drum Man who chose to walk into the kids (who are standing there) and bleat on his percussion instrument a mere inch or couple of inches from someone's face.

It must be those feral packs of MAGA kids who roam the streets of DC looking for prey to feast on that have given Sandmann the raw edge of that scenario.

I am reluctant to comment on the Sandman videos. I have no idea what really happened there. Again... people are seeing what they want to see in those videos. It is unfortunate that there was such a rush to judgement when it comes to a 16 y/o kid but these are the times in which we are living.

In terms of bullying/intimidating/racist behavior one could point to the teenagers jumping around doing a tomahawk chop to the Native Americans?

Nobody covered themselves in glory in those videos. We'll see what clarification this lawsuit provides.

(02-22-2019 01:36 PM)tanqtonic Wrote:  Even coming down off a 'crime'...... what is the 'bullying' exhibited by Sandmann? What is the 'instigation' exhibited by Sandmann?

Somehow the deadly trio of 'smirking', 'standing', and wearing a MAGA hat is now the definition of "bullying" and/or "instigating". Notwithstanding it was Drum Man who chose to walk into the kids (who are standing there) and bleat on his percussion instrument a mere inch or couple of inches from someone's face.

It must be those feral packs of MAGA kids who roam the streets of DC looking for prey to feast on that have given Sandmann the raw edge of that scenario.

And, I would opine that if one chose to wear a MAGA hat at venue, say like Berkeley, odds are pretty good that one might be punched in the face. Like as happened day before yesterday to the guy who had the temerity to sit at a table in Berkeley commons with the unimaginably grotesque and spiteful sign stating "Hate crime hoaxes hurt real victims" and "this is MAGA country."

Interesting addition at the end.

I think that the situation is pretty awful - the kid shouldn’t have been assaulted for a sign and his involvement with TPUSA, but I doubt he really cares much about fake accusations across the board, and is playing a team sport there. Regardless, his sentiment about how awful fake accusations are does ring true.

I would Counter opine that if one chose to wear an Obama shirt at a venue, say like a Trump rally in Arizona, odds are pretty good one might get punched in the face. Heck, if someone stood in front of a confederate statue by themselves in a deep southern town and proclaimed its evil and that it needs to be removed, they might get punched too.

What this tells me is that there are idiots on both sides of the aisle, and we shouldn’t keep trying to score points for our team.

(02-22-2019 01:45 PM)RiceLad15 Wrote:  

(02-22-2019 01:36 PM)tanqtonic Wrote:  Even coming down off a 'crime'...... what is the 'bullying' exhibited by Sandmann? What is the 'instigation' exhibited by Sandmann?

Somehow the deadly trio of 'smirking', 'standing', and wearing a MAGA hat is now the definition of "bullying" and/or "instigating". Notwithstanding it was Drum Man who chose to walk into the kids (who are standing there) and bleat on his percussion instrument a mere inch or couple of inches from someone's face.

It must be those feral packs of MAGA kids who roam the streets of DC looking for prey to feast on that have given Sandmann the raw edge of that scenario.

It was a very weird situation all around. The teens were being heckled by a radical black Israelite organization that is absolutely insane. The teens responded to those rather gross insults, and unfortunately not in a desecalatory manner. Then the drumming guy joined the fray, trying to deescalate it, but that failed. And then you have the smirking kid who, instead of backing down, just stayed in his spot, oddly smiling at the drumming guy a few inches away from him.

This entire situation is a perfect example of not only getting the whole story before jumping to conclusions and condemnation, and why it’s better to not give into provocateurs and give them what they wanted.

And while the media at large deserves criticism for how many wrote opinion pieces condemning the students,

Just some common sense --- if I go to a mob of kids who are chanting (anything).... it doesnt seem really common sense smart to 'de-escalate' by banging a fing drum inches from people's faces.

Look, from Philips' own comments he viewed the kids as the 'sharks' and the aggressors. But yet the Black Hebrew Israelites can be heard in *every* video to be the purveyor of escalation. Dont you find it odd when, on one hand you have the very vocal and continued calls of "Y’all dirty ass little crackers, your day is coming”, and "incest kids" (among the nicer comments, mind you), ad on the other a group of high school kids pretty much for the most part watching, that Sandmann explicitly initially and continues to this day to mark the kids as the 'sharks'?

No offense, Sandmann was trying to make a political point. Banging a fing drum inches from someone's face is not in any way, shape, or form an act of de-escalation. And automatically assuming that the group *not* for the most part engaging in grotesque and race baiting slurs are the sharks, he makes it clear that he simply chose that the 'evil white kids in the MAGA hats' were the sharks.

Quote:the fact that we know the entire story now is only because the media at large decided to tell the entire story once it came out.

Actually the fact that we know the whole story now isnt because of the media. It is because of the proliferation of cameras and social media. The snippet and edited portions went viral, even when the entire proceedings of the events were available online. Sorry, the press fked this up. And it was mainly due to social media that the entirety of the events is known now. It was only *after* social media threw the utter negligent manner of their reporting in their face did any semblance at real reporting happen.

Im sorry, even in the best light the normal media's original major league fkup is not in any way ameliorated by the 'make good' that they were *forced* to perform.

(02-22-2019 01:45 PM)RiceLad15 Wrote:  Then the drumming guy joined the fray, trying to deescalate it, but that failed. And then you have the smirking kid who, instead of backing down, just stayed in his spot, oddly smiling at the drumming guy a few inches away from him.

Who said he was trying to deescalate it, and how does standing in front of kid drumming do that? Why not stand in front of a Black Israelite and drum?

And why should the kid back down?

Sandmann's statement

"I was not intentionally making faces at the protestor. I did smile at one point because I wanted him to know that I was not going to become angry, intimidated or be provoked into a larger confrontation. I am a faithful Christian and practicing Catholic, and I always try to live up to the ideals my faith teaches me -- to remain respectful of others, and to take no action that would lead to conflict or violence."

I am being called every name in the book, including a racist, and I will not stand for this mob-like character assassination of my family's name. My parents were not on the trip, and I strive to represent my family in a respectful way in all public settings.
I have received physical and death threats via social media, as well as hateful insults. One person threatened to harm me at school, and one person claims to live in my neighborhood. My parents are receiving death and professional threats because of the social media mob that has formed over this issue

(02-22-2019 03:27 PM)OptimisticOwl Wrote:  

(02-22-2019 01:45 PM)RiceLad15 Wrote:  Then the drumming guy joined the fray, trying to deescalate it, but that failed. And then you have the smirking kid who, instead of backing down, just stayed in his spot, oddly smiling at the drumming guy a few inches away from him.

Who said he was trying to deescalate it, and how does standing in front of kid drumming do that? Why not stand in front of a Black Israelite and drum?

Why stand in front of *anyone*, jam a Tom Tom almost literally into their face, and then bang away on it?

The act, whether directed at a child in a MAGA hat, a KKKer, or Mother Theresa, is still amazingly provocative in its own right. Not a mark of a person who either: a) is trying the de-escalate; or b) doesnt have their own agenda.

Y'all notice where I said tried and failed?

(02-22-2019 04:25 PM)RiceLad15 Wrote:  Y'all notice where I said tried and failed?

Very much so.

Give us why you think that standing in front of Nick drumming was a "try" to deescalate. That's the part I don't see. The only failure I saw was the failure to provoke Nick into an action or statement.

Lad, why do you think Phillips was trying to defuse the situation?

(02-22-2019 07:05 PM)OptimisticOwl Wrote:  Lad, why do you think Phillips was trying to defuse the situation?

Watching not only longer videos, but his interview, it’s clear he saw the escalation between the boys and the black Israelites and wanted to create a diversion and distract them from each other. When he started walking into the boys’ crowd he did so slowly and very passively.

I’d have to watch again to see how him and that one kid came face to face, to see who approached who and got so close.

(02-22-2019 08:01 PM)RiceLad15 Wrote:  

(02-22-2019 07:05 PM)OptimisticOwl Wrote:  Lad, why do you think Phillips was trying to defuse the situation?

Watching not only longer videos, but his interview, it’s clear he saw the escalation between the boys and the black Israelites and wanted to create a diversion and distract them from each other. When he started walking into the boys’ crowd he did so slowly and very passively.

I’d have to watch again to see how him and that one kid came face to face, to see who approached who and got so close.

If you would post links to those videos and that interview, I would appreciate it. TIA.

(02-22-2019 08:53 PM)OptimisticOwl Wrote:  

(02-22-2019 08:01 PM)RiceLad15 Wrote:  

(02-22-2019 07:05 PM)OptimisticOwl Wrote:  Lad, why do you think Phillips was trying to defuse the situation?

Watching not only longer videos, but his interview, it’s clear he saw the escalation between the boys and the black Israelites and wanted to create a diversion and distract them from each other. When he started walking into the boys’ crowd he did so slowly and very passively.

I’d have to watch again to see how him and that one kid came face to face, to see who approached who and got so close.

If you would post links to those videos and that interview, I would appreciate it. TIA.

The interview I found had the interviewer asking leading questions, and Phillips answering in a noncommittal fashion

For example:

Interviewer: You went into there to defuse the situation, didn't you?
Phillips: I guess so.

Let me know if your re-viewing of the videos shows Sandmann moving to block him. The one I saw did not.

Quote:Redacted court filings suggest that Paul Manafort gave Konstantin Kilimnik—whom Special Counsel Robert Mueller has alleged is a Russian spy—75 pages of recent polling data. The data was referenced in an email with Manafort’s associate, Rick Gates, and in emails sent by Kilimnik. According to the emptywheel blog, Manafort’s attorneys describe the polling data as “Exhibit 233,” which dates “prior to the Republican Convention and the start of the General Election.” In the document, his lawyers wrote that Manafort referenced the polling data in an email to Gates on August 2, 2016—with a footnote that lists the page numbers of “Exhibit 233” as “pp. 4-79,” a total of 75 pages. Court documents also describe emails Kilimnik sent, and at least six of them refer back to “Exhibit 233.” The polling data was mentioned in Mueller’s sentencing memo against Manafort, who could face up to 22 years in prison. Lawyers for Manafort also appeared to reference the shared polling data in an insufficiently redacted court filing last December that claimed the former Trump chairman had not lied to Mueller's team but merely misremembered certain details.

Maybe it's because I've been trained too sufficiently in a national security mindset, but I'm trying to figure out what law this broke. As I understand it, it was Manafort's data. If it were stolen from someone else, or if it were classified like the stuff on Hillary's server, I could see the crime very clearly. I'm just not sure what the crime is here.

So the collusion was giving the Russkies polling data? Oh my, how heinous.

Hope it was better than the polling data Hillary used in her campaign.