You are putting a whole lot of crap into my mouth that I never said. Please stop doing that.
I came at it from the opposite approach… why would they think that a parent didn’t deserve money? It must be something awful or else surely they would be entitled to something.
I mean, this jury said one set of parents was entitled to $4,000,000 and then said this other person… no $50 was too good for that person, they get $0.
To me, there’s probably a reason for that. You seem to think it’s offensive and that it’s better to assume that the jury is awarding money randomly, like a state lottery.
What is your source for this, by the way? I’ve looked at a bunch and they only mention Heslin & Jones and that “they” were awarded $4.1 million. I can’t find any mention of a parent who was awarded $0.
I have no clue how the jury determined damages, and as I remarked above I’m not going to speculate without more information. How you divined I think what you think I do, only you can explain. I can promise you’re grossly wrong, though. Maybe ask, instead of continuing to dig yourself into a hole.
Let me help you out, though: I don’t know how the jury arrived at its damages on each count, and I’m not inclined to speculate on the reasoning for the damages on each count. I’ll wait to see if the jury members talk to the press and offer details, and then take them at their word since they were in a room together talking about it with each other and they know much better how they arrived at their decisions than I do sitting in my house 1200 miles away following the entire proceedings casually and only catching the last couple days of testimony.
Again: if you need further insight into what I think, probably better to ask me than to pretend you know what I think and make a fool out of yourself.
Ted: [completely false and incredibly outrageous scenario essentially requiring one of the parents to be an awful person]. I wonder why that is.
twig: [maybe the parent is an awful person?]
Ted: You’re bad and you should feel bad for thinking that.
Uh, YOU presented this false outrageous scenario and then criticized ME for speculating on your false outrageous scenario with an explanation that would explain it… and pretty close to the ONLY scenario that would explain it. And you even admitted that you couldn’t think of any other possible reason for it.
I was disappointed they weren’t awarded more, especially in context of the large recent draws from the company. But then I remember punitive damages are up next, and there are still the trials in CT, so hopefully some $ will be left for the other plaintiffs.
Yeah, the compensatory damages are just for what they actually lost: time off work, shrink bills, dealing with vandalism, mental anguish, etc.
And not for the loss of their kid (Alex Jones didn’t cause that; the shooter did). Only time for the harassment they subsequently received due to his lies.
The punitive damages will probably (hopefully) dwarf the compensatory ones.
Agree, just don’t know if he does. I don’t wish specific harm on very many people, but AJ can f*ck all the way off, imo. Special place in hell for that guy.
I mean, I could think of a number of reasons why $0 might have been awarded that don’t require any conclusion that one of the parents was awful. Lack of proof of economic damages incurred. Belief that the damage alleged wasn’t compensable in any event. Belief that the damages asserted, while lamentable, are beyond what a parent might have reasonably experienced in any other situation and thus not worthy of compensation. Belief that the damage alleged wasn’t directly caused by the defendant’s actions. Belief that the parent’s claims, while reasonable, were overstated and thus not worthy of compensation. [Which has nothing to do with whether the parent is awful or not.]
Notice how none of that requires any conclusion about “one of the parents to be an awful person?” It wasn’t that difficult and all of those are quite reasonable conclusions that I came up with in less than 5 minutes.
I’m going to let you attempt to explain how “one of the plaintiffs was awarded $0” [which, as we now know, was an incorrect interpretation - it’s really that one of the plaintiffs was awarded $0 for a specific claim] somehow constitutes a “completely false and incredibly outrageous scenario essentially requiring one of the parents to be an awful person.” Because God knows, I have no clue how your mind works that leads you to that conclusion.
Honest question: are you OK?
Not once in this thread have I asserted how you think, or why you think what you do. [Well, except for my tongue-in-cheek remark about confusing the motivations of debt collectors, but we’ve moved way beyond that.] I don’t do that, unless someone’s expressions are so clear that there’s no other way to interpret their words, and I guarantee I haven’t done that with you here.
I have asserted that your thought process that one of the parents must be a deadbeat dad is at best idiotic, and with each time you double down on it increasingly sadistic. It’s especially sadistic in light of more information that undercuts your entire premise, and sadistic given that you made the assertion with no basis for it and no proof of any kind to back it up. I will continue to call you out for that as long as you persist with it.
Seriously, twig. Take the L here. You’re looking worse and worse every time you try to stand behind throwing a parent of one of the dead kids under the bus.
I disagree … hard. I think none of those are remotely plausible in this specific case. There exist plenty of cases where those might be actual findings, but I don’t think it’s possible for a jury to make those findings in this case. And… they didn’t.
Right. None of those are plausible because you don’t think they’re plausible. It’s more plausible that he’s just a goddamn deadbeat, with absolutely zero proof to back it up and even less proof that it was presented to the jury for consideration.
What’s incorrect? Those kids weren’t merely shot to death. They were in some cases obliterated to pieces. Are you disputing that?
I’m pretty sure it’s been well-documented the father suffered incredibly over the years after the death of his child, and he then testified about the hell he was put through by Jones over the years. Do you want to claim he’s making that up, too?
JFC. If your big complaint is BUT I DIDN’T SAY THOSE KIDS WERE WASTED TO PIECES AND ALL THE OTHER STUFF YOU PUT IN BOLD you’re missing the entire fucking point: you accused a parent of a kid killed at Sandy Hook of not getting any money awarded to him by the jury for no other reason than he must be a deadbeat parent, with not one fucking piece of proof to back it up, and you keep repeating it like it’s a fact even though you still refuse to provide any proof to back it up.
[Which, even pretending the parent is a deadbeat - from everything I see, he was charged with larceny circa 2012 in something completely unrelated but which still wouldn’t make him a deadbeat dad - still wouldn’t be “proof” that the jury made its decision the way it did, especially when that information couldn’t have been introduced into evidence in this trial and so the jury couldn’t possibly have considered it in deliberations.]
It’s the same kind of shit Alex Jones and all the other Sandy Hook troofers have spouted for 15 years and counting as reasons the parents were making all their grief up, that Sandy Hook never happened, that it was all crisis actors, that the kids were really alive and living somewhere else, and all that bullshit. And here you are still defending your remarks as if they’re the complete indisputable truth and no one should challenge them, because you assert it must be true and there’s no other possible reasons to explain the jury’s decision because you refuse to acknowledge anything else is plausible, and so you cannot possibly be wrong.
God damn, twig. You fathom me. I really expected better out of you than to stoop to conspiracy-based blathering like you seem to want to embrace here.
