JimG

Should Alex Jones have to pay the parents of Sandy Hook?

Rate this topic

304 posts in this topic

Just now, Slacker said:

Yes.  Being called a liar is injurious to your character.  Think how pissy people get on here over being called a liar in an anonymous forum on a fishing message board.  

 

Still have to prove damages and I think dude pointed out that the harassment these parents got from his fans may be where the injury is.   That sounds right

 

It's not simply being called a liar.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Jones has lost in court a few times.  Someone must be proving some "injury" and "damages".

 

This lawsuit is the first of three against Alex Jones by the parents of victims of the Sandy Hook shooting. Judges in both Connecticut and Texas have found him liable for damages caused by his false claims. He was also found guilty of defamation last year. In total, nine families have sued Jones over the years.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 mins ago, BrianBM said:

Some of the parents have had to move repeatedly because of harassment. The one pair of parents (Feldman?) have moved a dozen times. Strangers bang on their doors and demand that they admit to the hoax. They show up at the children's graves, and shout abuse at the parents, or do so merely when they see them in the street. They get harassed on the phone, on the Internet, and it will never end.

 

Financial damages aren't enough. The parents ought to be able to take a baseball bat to him personally, and to everyone who has ever showed up to bother them.

Do you think the courts will find him liable for what his lunatic fans do?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

So far it seems to me that no one in this thread really knows what was said.

 

This reminds me of the Kansas abortion vote.  We should let the jury do the heavy lifting and let the chips fall where they may.  I am inclined to believe the plaintiffs have a pretty strong case.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 min ago, JimG said:

Do you think the courts will find him liable for what his lunatic fans do?

 

He let the courts do so by default. He didn't show up to litigate a free-speech defense, so he's foreclosed from doing so now. He is malice, personified.

 

Never good practice to lose by default/.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Steve_in_PA said:

Whio is the judge?

 

You want it done right?

 

Me.

 

1 hour ago, Gotcow? said:

You don't know what I would propose...........

 

You call my opinion crazy, so that means you're softer than I am on the issue, and obviously I consider my opinion to be correct, or I would change it.

 

Isn't that true of all of us?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Just now, BrianBM said:

 

He let the courts do so by default. He didn't show up to litigate a free-speech defense, so he's foreclosed from doing so now. He is malice, personified.

 

Never good practice to lose by default/.

 

Interesting and odd

Was that his legal strategy or just him being defiant?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4 mins ago, Slacker said:

Yes.  Being called a liar is injurious to your character.  Think how pissy people get on here over being called a liar in an anonymous forum on a fishing message board.  

I enjoyed being called a liar until 
the posted post was posted by #1 to clear things up Hey the guys did man up and all is forgiven…  but they still suck . :howdy:

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
5 mins ago, BrianBM said:

 

He let the courts do so by default. He didn't show up to litigate a free-speech defense, so he's foreclosed from doing so now. He is malice, personified.

 

Never good practice to lose by default/.

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Just now, JimG said:

Interesting and odd

Was that his legal strategy or just him being defiant?

I can't tell for sure, but I think it was him being defiant, and probably buying time to hide assets. The families will get a judgment, but collecting on it is something else.

 

The free speech aspect is interesting, and the extent to which he can be held accountable for the things his moronic followers do is a VERY interesting legal question. The latter, in particular, will doubtless be raised in some other case. Not this one, though.

 

As a moral issue, I'd happily let a murderer escape electrocution in order to free up some wattage for him.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 mins ago, BrianBM said:

I can't tell for sure, but I think it was him being defiant, and probably buying time to hide assets. The families will get a judgment, but collecting on it is something else.

 

The free speech aspect is interesting, and the extent to which he can be held accountable for the things his moronic followers do is a VERY interesting legal question. The latter, in particular, will doubtless be raised in some other case. Not this one, though.

 

As a moral issue, I'd happily let a murderer escape electrocution in order to free up some wattage for him.

Thx

 

 

I honestly don't know why anyone takes him seriously.   I do think it's all a performance and the joke is on the people that get angry. 

That being said his involvement with this story is incredibly distasteful and abhorrent.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
23 mins ago, brushfly said:

I think god forbid it's you or I, or anybody else on this thread, we all would have no idea as to how we would react knowing our children were killed and this fat pig is earning money spewing about how it never happened and was created by those he opposes. Not once, but repeatedly over and over since that dreadful day. JMO

I understand what you're saying.  I can't imagine feeling anything lower than the loss of my child.  Some nut on the internet spewing nonsense, a politician using it to further his own career or a newspaper sensationalizing it to generate revenue wouldn't make me feel any worse.  

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
25 mins ago, Slacker said:

Yes.  But opinions informed by experience.  Whereas your opinion isn't.

Neither is yours.  If we were on the jury, we would be seeing this differently.  I appreciate your opinion on this and am glad we're able to discuss it.  

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
28 mins ago, fish'nmagician said:

I wonder if Raider was able to figure out who is defending him yet.

I can’t really but I’ve been busy and haven’t read through the entire thread so I guess it’s entirely possible 

 

My words though is that no is defending Alex Jones and your trolling / lying / being a D-Bag 

 

Can you name names? 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 hours ago, JimG said:

Feelings about Alex Jones aside (personally I see him as an Andy Kaufman type of character.   The joke is on the people taking him seriously)  .....

 

...but why isn't he free to speculate and have crazy conspiracy theories?

 

 

What is he liable for?

 

 

 

Only those that aren't cult members of the democrat party will be held responsible... not sure what for? He's about as crazy as Adam Schiff and his insane Russian collusion tirade!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to register here in order to participate.

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!


Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.


Sign In Now

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.