Comments by "L.W. Paradis" (@l.w.paradis2108) on "Johnny Depp trial: Judge rejects Amber Heard's demands for dismissal | LiveNOW from FOX" video.

@heelercs A mob has formed. Mobs don't care about truth. The truth is, this is a defamation case. That means that if the article, which alludes to Depp as committing "domestic abuse," is true, then he cannot win. Domestic abuse includes emotional abuse, as long as it is more than trivial or occasional, and not just a brief response to provocation. IOW, as long as it's substantial enough to be traumatic to anyone, it is not a lie. It does not matter if she was abusive as well. It does not matter that she has a bad character. This isn't a criminal case or a divorce.
3
@heelercs No worries. The mobs are forming and switching targets too fast for my peace of mind. OTOH, this will blow over. Remember how we were supposed to suspend the 4th an 5th Amendments for Gabby Petito?
3
@heelercs Of course there is ample evidence they were both abusing each other, and it was an extremely dysfunctional relationship. This was already developed in one court, in the UK. Of course there are men who are not abusive to every partner, just certain ones. Everyone knows them. A friend I had in high school was like that, and he went into counseling on his own. It turned out that he had been an abused child, and something about that woman brought out a surge of anger. He worked very hard on it, got married much later, and worked hard on his marriage. I acknowledge that, even though years later he was mean to me. (I wouldn't date him in high school. High school was a sad time for him, I found out later.)
3
@LBenn302 what not 😂
2
@casualfoodenjoyer7951 If he admits to emotional abuse, then the article is not defamatory as a matter of law. Did you read the article? Depp already lost a defamation lawsuit in UK against a tabloid which was a much stronger case. His reputation from that, and his reputation in general before Heard published anything, was so bad that he can't prove SHE caused his damages by writing THAT article. See, before a court can order the sheriff to seize someone's bank accounts, car, house, etc., you have to prove that you're entitled to it, for real. Feelings are not enough. Unless you want to vote on Facebook instead. 🤣
2
@fernandofranco6391 Women hate other women and love to tell men all about it. It's a compliment, actually. They might welcome a flirtation.
1
@BastardOfTheNorth False.
1
@ladyzuzu7 You're the one who joined the latest mob.
1
@ladyzuzu7 Did you read the article? It's the whole basis of the case. Did you bother to find it and read it? Well, "I feel sorry for you, you will be really embarrassed when . . . " blah blah. Why are you projecting your life onto a couple of drugged up millionaires who think $10 million is spare change?
1
@heelercs I just remembered, Petito ended up dead in small part because in their police encounter, the police decided she was the primary abuser. Suddenly, that never happened. That's not part of our store of knowledge about human relationships.
1
@paulinamreno When you decided you know people you don't know, you understand laws you don't understand, and picked a side (the one that lost one defamation suit already), how did you do that? Some of us are not prone to that sort of thing.
1
@TotalDbag24 So, defamation law demands a plaintiff prove the unproveable.
1
@paulinamreno My father was quite agnostic, but there was one precept from the Bible he always quoted to me: "He who is without sin, let him cast the first stone." It stuck.
1
@paulinamreno It's a call to deeper and truer conscience.
1
@paulinamreno Well, I guess it was wasted on you. Such is crowd psychology. Lots of people agree with me, and we have longer exchanges. You're right, I am wasting my time on those with a thirst to identify Enemies, and will say anything to satisfy their thirst. Blocked.
1
He's not on trial. He already lost a defamation case on these basic facts.
1
@yesyouarecorrect1315 That's not an issue in a defamation case. If he abused a terrible person who was just as bad or worse, that terrible person still has a right to mention it in an article. The article is not defamatory.
1
No court case is about any "group justice" but about the individuals facing the judge and jury in that case, and no one else. All of you who are projecting your own sorry episodes on two people who are complete strangers to you and screaming for show "justice" will come to rue this day.
1
Say no to drugs.
1
@LBenn302 First I had to stay in my house. Then I had to double mask. Then it was time to be injected with some new vaxx. Or else. (Hunter's laptop is Russian dis/mis/malinformation I swear it is, don't come for me.) Next, I had to fly the Ukrainian flag. (I had to buy a Ukrainian flag.) And then I have to be for some DRUGGIE because Bad Women and pirates. Finally, I have to shut up. America, Land of the Free.
1
She's not on trial. The only question is whether a particular writing is defamation, and if it is, whether it is the cause of the plaintiff's damages . Too bad what could be truly educational is being wildly distorted. BTW, did you ever read that writing? I mean the mild article Heard wrote, that Depp calls defamation?
1
@unabellavita6541 Depp is pursuing a case. He already lost a stronger case. Who do you think brought this case?
1
@AfrewSpines Where do you get the idea the case is stacked for Depp? He lost a much better case already.
1
@retrojohnny1899 These people's minds are gone. This isn't a court for them, it's a psychodrama and they are as involved as if it were happening to them. They are reliving their own relationships through two weird people they do not know, and would pity if they did .
1
@madtrigger6835 So, you're incapable of hearing what this lawyer actually said just now? And you don't know what a defamation case is? Every defamation case chips away at free speech rights. I would defend a defamation case that should not have been brought in the first place.
1
@Stayler17 This is a civil case. She cannot be found guilty of anything.
1
@brandonwalker5011 They have made objective mistakes? Please cite the mistake and the law underlying it. I'm thinking you must be an attorney yourself to make such an assertion.
1
@tbk29 She's not going to be punished. Depp failed to press criminal charges.
1
@Terrible_Peril Yeah. So, Depp brought this case as a show trial, a re-do of his divorce and to settle scores. That is not what court is supposed to be for. Legal process is not for the purpose of getting even in the eyes of the public, it is to vindicate actual rights. Every defamation case chips away at free speech rights. Be careful what you wish for.
1
@casualfoodenjoyer7951 Her alleged abuse of him has no bearing on defamation, no. Who the bigger abuser was has no bearing, either. Did you read the article? The CASE is about the ARTICLE. Not about who is badder.
1
@joelgarcia3907 Depp brought the case. Yes, it is vindictive. He lost one defamation suit already, and he had a much better case in that instance, and his loss there might not have been fair (but the plaintiff bears the burden of proof, so in a close case is likely to lose just for that reason). In this case, he is attacking free speech, in a country with a real First Amendment. That's how comparatively flimsy it is.
1
@madtrigger6835 Mm. Tell me exactly where in the article that Depp asserts to be defamatory Heard lied. Tell me her words, and contrast them with proven facts. Right. You have exactly zero idea of what you're talking about, and the absurdities promoted here, plus the censorship of cogent views, means I am abandoning this nonsense. Depp already lost a case on the theory you seem to believe. I wonder if you even read the article that is the gravamen of Depp's complaint? Nah. I don't wonder. 😂 Blocked.
1
@shadowywarrior A defamation case is about what was said. Did anyone read the article? The actual words count. The actual words do not imply physical abuse, so the lawyers argued emotional abuse, which Depp admitted, was sufficient for a dismissal.
1