King Spew: try empathy and compassion next time, CB

I was gonna say: "what happened to law and order and all that?" but now it's weird since the mod edit.

Ok that certainly was not clear to me.

I've read this 4 times over and I think the most direct reading here is one where in your first sentence 'WAPO (got a lot of claims thrown out but )are left with 3 that were 'impossible to win a case for'.

Second sentence infers a way out for WAPO in both cash and reputation. I see no other reading.

3rd sentence does not do anything to change the prior two but just suggests Sandman would settle.

Perhaps others familiarity with the trial let them bridge some gap there but I don't think many people with no familiarity would read other than how I did.

You coulda left it at this

So firstly, the fact that the claims were thrown out at an initial hearing and only allowed to proceed after appeal makes it immediately clear that they were not slam dunks to succeed. Secondly I don't know that there is ever a situation where a defamation case is "almost impossible" for the defendant to win (assuming an even vaguely respectable defendant). Thirdly I don't think anyone would ever deliberately say "such and such is good for X and is also good for Y" where X and Y are just different terms for the same thing.

I genuinely think more people would not even notice the mistake because the context makes it clear what was meant than would read it as you did.

anything to own the internet "leftists" for paulieD. even if it takes quoting some random twitter post.

100% agree.

Do you also agree he could have just left his response at this.

But instead chose to go on in a way that at least suggested this is something I should have been able to correct? A subtle form of it being my mistake or at least lack of discernment of something 'clear'?


And an absolute serious question is 'why do you think you felt the need to call me out and not him on that'? I am seriously curious as again to clarify his admitted mistake he "could have left it at that"?

Well you are assuming a ton of facts into evidence that were never raised as if readers have that info to consider as context for your comment. That is an error.

Without such context your post is not clear nor discernable easily imo and i stand by that.

When you say "3 of the claims were allowed to proceed" and those are the ones that "more of less impossible to win a case for" everything you wrote in the sentence naturally is attributed to WAPO. They got 'all but 3 dismissed but had no chance to win on those three' is exactly how I read your words.

You then go on to say WAPO (the defendant) saves money by agreeing to settle for "disposition/discovery costs" and saves reputation.

Those two points by you I think are abundantly clear in any plain reading of what you wrote but I can see how one correction could change it.

That you think with no context I should have just changed Defendant to Plaintiff there is certainly not natural as you still need a few more words to make it better flow, whereas if you meant Defendant it flows fine.

Anyway I am not sure why you are so sensitive about this. I did not say or suggest it any accusing way. I responded in earnest to my plain reading and instead of you simply just saying 'let me correct this one word and see if you better get what I meant' to which I would have said 'ya got it', instead you feel the need to make this an instance of 'ya I used mistakenly put in the wrong word but you should have known better'

Which as King Spew would say (well likely not to you) 'you could have stopped there'.

You're playing semantics.

He clearly is saying that the jurors intentionally let a guilty person go free and "he's" angry about it, or he's saying that the trial process in this particular case was a sham that led to the jurors making the incorrect decision. There are no other explanations behind his statement.

That's different than saying, "All of the evidence was brought forth and the jurors assessed it and made the right decision, but I'm angry that the laws allow for such situations to be legal."

I get that he wants to dunk on the Berbiebros, but JFC when Tucker Carlson is celebrating the verdict, it’s an odd look to come in here spiking the football.

No, you are the one playing semantics.

Did you play sports ever?

I played sports all my life and have some very strong beliefs the refs got the calls wrong. Many in the viewing stands absolutely believe the ref's got the calls wrong in many of those instances.

But WE ALL accept the results.

We don't have to say 'the ref made the right call'. We never have to agree. But we DO have to accept the results.

Saying "I disagree 100% with the decision here and think he was wrong but I accept the results" is in now way saying "I don't accept the results" as is disingenuously being spun here.

Yes, I understand that he's not going to firebomb the juror's houses for handing down a guilty verdict; that is, he accepts the results.

However, he does not think they made the right "call," and he does not think the wrong "call" was made because the laws of self-defense are at fault.

Hypothetical question that could help pinpoint where disagreements may lie.

An adult male who doesn't like you, comes at you while you are armed. You have not recently provoked him. You have no means of escaping nor any way to defend yourself short of killing him dead. On the other hand, you somehow know that if you do nothing, he will punch you in the face, break your nose and perhaps other facial bones, and then walk away. (Throw in that there is no chance to win a big lawsuit.)

Do you think you would be morally (not legally) justified in killing him? I think posters here would not all answer the same way. (Hopefully posters will refrain from noting that in real life you couldn't be this precise.) If you would shoot, how minor would the injury have to be for you to refrain? Opposite question for those who wouldn't shoot.

Would your answer change if:

You were a woman being attacked by a man

He had a very good reason to be very angry at you.

He was very impaired.

You knew he had you mistaken for someone else (but you had no time to explain.)

These are critically important distinction you are conflating.

He is allowed to hold an opinion and if he is wrong or correct does not change that.

He is allowed to diverge on any International UN ruling against the US and say "I don't agree.'

He is allowed to diverge on any domestic ruling and say "I don't agree.


But that does not equal 'not accepting the ruling'.


This is a relatively new erroneous suggestion coming mostly from what I have seen from the right as a form of 'whataboutism' and it is 100% incorrect.

It flowed out the right seeking to defend Trumps refusal to accept the Biden win with 'whatboutism'. What about 'Hilary??? What about Stacey Abrams???

These are not equivalent. They accept the results. No one beyond that has to believe the process was fair or proper, if you actually do not. The latter is NOT a requirement for the former.

I can absolutely believe the ref made a tragic error that cost us the game but accept the result and loss, even if complain after the fact.

You offer a scenario where the one being attacked has perfect knowledge that he will suffer some serious but superficial harm (broken nose+ is the worst of it) and I think with such perfect knowledge I cannot justify shooting and killing him.

To me your scenario approximates what it was like growing up in the late70's where you knew, as I did in one instance that the toughest kid in the school was coming for me and we were going to fight and I knew, despite being a very good fighter myself, I was going to lose this one. He was a year older and a lot bigger and stronger. What I took comfort in back then was that my friends (or even his friends) would ensure once it was clear I lost, they would pull him off, if he did not stop. I would take a beating but it would not go too far. Sad today for kids that dynamic does not exist but I digress.

However without that perfect knowledge, the fact that he is attacking while you are armed would absolutely give you every reason to believe if you lose the fight, he may use the gun against you and you do not have to take that chance and can kill him in self defense.

Biden’s comments are completely in line with other administrations. Trump would have obviously been extreme to the point of insanity and gone after the DAs/live tweeted white nationalist talking points, but even Obama commented on Trayvon Martin, Louis Gates etc.

Will that win in court dissuade further events like this , involving kids armed ?
Obviously not .

Americans kids killing other Americans with guns while being too young to drink a beer or vote …..
Make America proud again !

At least the car shop been protected….

I just don’t understand how parents let their kids having such a difficult task ahead , so far away from home , during a potential volatile and dangerous event …armed at 17.

At 17 the kid most of been scared shitless .
Seem self defence to me .

Another tragedy coming soon anyway .
Regular news .
Rinse and repeat .

It’s rural conservative culture. No respect for education, hard work or laws but definitely an innate thirst for violence

take off your pants and assert dominance by peeing on his leg ldo

I don’t like to defend rural conservative culture, but this woman is psychopathic even by the normal standards of rightwing idiocy.

Yes


Because I was able to establish at first reading the meaning of the post in question. As did others. The wording wasn't pure,,,, but to see the error was pretty simple in my eyes.

There are errors in posts; often grammar, often spelling. I don't correct them if the intent (meaning) is evident to me since..... well, I'm a moran.

I'm not in favor of vigilantism. You'd probably be able to make a case to me that local law enforcement couldn't be counted on in a case like that but I'm a 'well regulated militia' guy. Not a "we get to act as if we have police powers even though we don't" type. Basically send in the guard or the fed if the locals are part of the problem.

I don't think you can kill someone to avoid a broken nose ever. If you actually knew that you wouldn't be able to kill him morally.

The problem is, when you're attacked and you have a gun the gun becomes a threat to you.

Morality is foundational for politcs and is ignored too much. So at the risk of DS deciding on justifiable homicide ...

For me a straightforward no.

a) It would be immoral for me to have the gun in the first place and using it doesn't help.
b) I dont believe it's possible to 'know' in the way DS suggests. Maybe such knowledge is possible and I'm mistaken in thinking I dont know when in fact I do, but nonetheless killing that would require knowledge that I dont think I have would be immoral.

This does not imply I think it would be immoral for someone else.

What do you mean by this? Are you saying the gun is a threat because the attacker may get it?