Comments by "yessum15" (@yessum15) on "LegalEagle"
channel.
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1) The audience didn't hate the joke. They laughed & gave performative groan. The same reaction they'd give for a corny pun. Mild amusement with some eye rolls.
2) Why are we pretending like Alopecia is cancer? This is barely a medical condition, somewhere on the level of acne. Valid target for a harmless and very brief dig. To her credit, Jada only seemed mildly annoyed.
3) Failing to prosecute over this is sending the message that the rich should indeed feel entitled to commit battery whenever they are annoyed. Half the celebrities leaving the show that night essentially indicated that they do believe this is their right, expressing some level of support for Smith's actions, or stating they would do the same.
These are people who have been rich so long they truly believe certain laws and moral standards do not apply to them and the tepid and middling response to a public battery is evidence of that.
The fact that he was allowed to take his seat and was applauded with a standing ovation afterwards is disgusting. I wonder if an usher or a security guard would receive the same treatment for punching the host live on national TV and then heckling afterwards?
3) On a side note we should state the obvious:
Will was not angry. This was a calculated move of performative violence by a toxic personality in order to rehabilitate his masculinity in front of his wife and the public following months of lampooning in response to the revelation that his wife committed infidelity with a teenager.
If this was Alonzo Bodden, Brendan Schaub, Joe Rogan, Mike Tyson, or anyone else not half his size, he would've been happy to laugh it off and the Smiths and the world at large would have forgotten the joke seconds afterwards.
4) If the comedian community were not so disunited and desperate to appease Hollywood, they would have organized a boycott. I suppose we'll have to wait until a violent heckler gets shot before we discuss this seriously.
1
-
1
-
@relaxolotl_ltoloxaler "Reactive abuse"
This argument tends to fall apart when we have multiple witness statements and multiple pieces of physical evidence demonstrating that you inflicted severe physical injury on your wife in multiple separate incidents with no such similar damage to yourself.
Reactive abuse doesn't work as a defense if you've actively announced your desire to hurt her repeatedly.
It doesn't work when the physical injuries are inconsistent with a defensive response.
It doesn't work when there are multiple recordings of you standing by and acknowledging that you beat her senseless multiple times without ever denying it.
And finally, it's frankly more difficult to prove when you have a well established history of abusing your wife in non-physical ways which you do not deny.
Again, the more likely case here is mutual abuse.
"In all evidence we have seen Amber is the one initiating the abuse"
To be clear you're referring to short audio clips provided by Mr. Depp. His behavior is obviously going to be different when he knows he's capturing secret recordings with the intention of incriminating his partner.
However, even in these recordings, the full versions do refer to previous incidents of what appear to be mutual abuse. The recordings are also well in line with the sort of conversations we would expect in this kind of situation, with both sides accusing the other and both sides minimizing their actions.
At no point in the recordings did we get any admission from Amber that she made up any physical abuse allegation. Nor did Depp even get her to corroborate his denial of ever having hit her. If they knew it was a lie, why didn't he simply say, "He Amber, you know I've never hit you." And have her admit that on tape? He purposely avoided asking this question.
The most incriminating part of the tape is simply Amber minimizing the fact that she hit him based on the fact that:
a) he is a man
b) these were open palm strikes
If we're to be fair, this is actually not a crazy rationalization.
He is a man and these are a woman's slaps. There is essentially no real threat posed here and no damage caused.
So yes, it is wrong but it doesn't represent the level of threat that would typically spark a massive public outcry. And is not in line with the amount of physical damage Depp caused to her.
Again, all of this seems in line with a mutually abusive relationship.
A NOTE ON AMBER'S TAPES:
We should also bear in mind that the tapes Amber provided to the court were much more damning of Depp.
In these tapes she accused him of beating her severely inflicting significant damage. He did not deny this.
He also admitted to cutting his own finger off and both threatened to cut himself repeatedly while she begged him not to. He also pressured her to let him cut her while holding a knife.
There is no question this man abused her severely.
1
-
@relaxolotl_ltoloxaler "You're saying a man can't be abused by a woman"
No. I'm saying that her minimizing slapping him in the context of a relationship where he beat her up is understandable. During that same recording she references multiple times where he beat her to the point of causing injury. He never once denies it.
So yes, in that context, it's a bit laughable that he would then try to pass off being slapped with no ill effect as abuse.
I would have laughed too. So would you.
"No witnesses ever saw Johnny hit Amber"
Stephen Deuters did.
"Amber claimed broken ribs"
No, she said bruised ribs. Meaning bruises on her body where her ribs are.
"She claimed 2 black eyes and a broken nose"
A makeup artist and a nurse confirmed swelling and a cut on her nose as well as minor bruising around both of her eyes.
I agree here that she overstated the extent of the injuries, but these are still consistent with having been hit. I wouldn't be surprised that a woman with no medical training or fight experience might mistake a damaged nose for a broken one.
Aside from that there are numerous pictures of her face with injuries from being hit which include bruises on her eyes, cheeks, and nose.
No girlfriend I've ever had is regularly photographed with facial injuries like that. Clearly, somebody was hitting her.
Let's try to remember that Depp was accused by her numerous times of beating her. On tape. She referenced multiple specific incidents where he hit her, in great detail.
He never once denied it. Hell, after she accused him of beating her up during one recorded conversation his response was:
"I made a huge mistake, I'll never do it again."
The denials only began after the lawsuits started.
CONCLUSION
Sorry but this pattern is pretty clear. Amber has been complaining consistently about him beating her since before they even got married. 8 different medical professionals attested to this.
She never changed her story.
We have photographs and multiple people claiming to have witnessed it. The Metadata of the photographs correspond to the dates and times where Johnny reached out to her to apologize.
We have Johnny apologizing constantly for ambiguously "monstrous" behavior and admitting to blacking out and doing crazy things when drunk and not remembering what he did.
We have Johnny tacitly acknowledging it on tape without ever once denying that he hit her.
We have two other people accusing Johnny of assaulting them when intoxicated during the same time period.
We have a history of Johnny lying on the stand multiple times (claiming that she cut his finger until a tape was revealed of him saying that he literally cut himself).
We have audio tape of Johnny threatening to cut himself while she begs him not to, and then insisting on cutting her with a knife despite her protests.
I mean this is a really clear picture.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@LowJSamuel Shockingly, I was not asking for your own uniformed opinion, but rather the video maker's.
1) The word "victim" may or may not influence a jury (this is a matter of opinion) but factually it does not come with any presumption since the legal definition of "victim" does not exonerate the injured of criminal culpability nor incriminate the injurer.
However, the judge's decision to bar use of the word is extremely uncommon and contradicts the opinion of most judges and legal experts. Typically, the most care we'll see exhibited is the use of the words "alleged victim" among individuals particularly sensitive to this sort of potential inadvertent influence.
2) In spite of the fact that no one was being tried for looting, referring to the victims of a potential self defense shooting as criminals does have a far stronger prejudicial effect than calling them victims, because whereas the label "victim" does not include a determination of criminality, the words looters & arsonists do. Specifically, these words suggest that the injured parties have already been tried & proven to be criminals in despite access to a legal and fair defense.
We can describe their actions on the day in question, but to label them with criminal designations without access to a trial is prejudicial to the current matter.
3) Regardless of ones opinion of the carry law, no legal expert has had the audacity to claim that it is clear. It is not.
I have indeed read the law. It is not will written. Whether there even is a minor exception at all is arguable.
However, assuming there is, the repeated inclusion of reference to hunting in describing the minor exception does seem to indicate the intention of the lawmakers in carving out said exception. One may argue whether that exception was meant to be exclusive, but it seems extremely likely that the intention of the lawmakers in carving out this rule was that said exception was intended only to facilitate a very specific kind of activity, as opposed to creating a loophole for general open carry among minors.
BONUS: The jury's decision in this case did not establish the victims as assailants, since affirming a shooting as legitimate self defense does not mean that you believe the shooter was actually in danger, rather that you believe it was reasonable for him to believe he was in danger. Please don't misrepresent the verdict in this case.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1