Jesse Ventura -- what an A-hole

[hornadylnl]

Since Kyle wasn't there to tell or defend his side of the story, I'm not sure I agree...

Apparently his witnesses were just as convincing as Kyle's story.

 

[Fargo]

Apparently his witnesses were just as convincing as Kyle's story.

I didn't know dead men called witnesses? Perhaps you mean his estate/survivor's witnesses?

 

[hornadylnl]

I didn't know dead men called witnesses? Perhaps you mean his estate/survivor's witnesses?

The supposed witnesses to the supposed fight.

 

[hornadylnl]

It appears the jury heard Kyle's own words and chose to believe Ventura over Kyle.

During two weeks of testimony in a federal courtroom in St. Paul, jurors heard a videotaped deposition from Mr. Kyle, who defended his writings as accurate. The jurors were presented an array of statements Mr. Ventura made on topics like religion and war over many years, and defense lawyers suggested that his reputation was already deeply complicated. Most of all, the jurors heard from witnesses with varying memories of one evening in a California bar in 2006 – the scene from the book that Mr. Ventura contended was false.

 

[Fargo]

It appears the jury heard Kyle's own words and chose to believe Ventura over Kyle.

During two weeks of testimony in a federal courtroom in St. Paul, jurors heard a videotaped deposition from Mr. Kyle, who defended his writings as accurate. The jurors were presented an array of statements Mr. Ventura made on topics like religion and war over many years, and defense lawyers suggested that his reputation was already deeply complicated. Most of all, the jurors heard from witnesses with varying memories of one evening in a California bar in 2006 – the scene from the book that Mr. Ventura contended was false.

Do you really maintain that winning an credibility argument with a dead man's estate is the same thing as winning one with him there in person? You know, where he can respond to your testimony...

 

[Principal Skinr]

Verdict: Jesse Ventura is still an A-Hole. Sue Me.

I thought he seemed like one long before Kyle came along.

 

[ModernGunner]

Ventura has long been a scumbag

 

[KG1]

I thought he seemed like one long before Kyle came along.

Me too. My quote for when the thread was originally posted.

Ventura was an a-hole IMO before this happened, so he's got nothing to lose.

 

[ViperJock]

Looking at the history of this, it is a defamation suit. Kyle claimed the incident occurred, Ventura said it didn't. Unfortunately, since we don't know the facts we obviously can't determine who is right or wrong but if Ventura is in the right I don't think he's suing for money as much as he is to clear his name.

On the surface it sounds like a d-bag move on his part but I know if I was falsely accused by someone and their estate stood to make money off it I would go after whomever I needed to in order to clear my name.

Apparently there were witnesses that also said it happened. It's an asshat move but idk how he won?!?!

 

[Expat]

I see the case is really making a big splash on the news this morning. So if he wanted to publicize what a loser douchebag he is, he has succeeded in doing that.

 

[KG1]

.

 

[HoughMade]

So if a jury said it, it must be true? Really?

If a jury says it, it's a verdict. Nothing more.

We have witnesses who told conflicting stories. We have the guy who was at the center of it dead and unable to tell his side, in person, with the jury able to see him and assess him. We have the other guy able to fully explain his side with absolutely no fear that the opposing party will make a better appearance than him. "Kyle's side" is witnesses who do not have near the incentive to prepare for testimony or stick to their guns on cross like the actual defendant would.

Those of you who think that written words are the same as live testimony, you need to turn in your trial lawyer cards....oh wait.

 

[hornadylnl]

So if a jury said it, it must be true? Really?

If a jury says it, it's a verdict. Nothing more.

We have witnesses who told conflicting stories. We have the guy who was at the center of it dead and unable to tell his side, in person, with the jury able to see him and assess him. We have the other guy able to fully explain his side with absolutely no fear that the opposing party will make a better appearance than him. "Kyle's side" is witnesses who do not have near the incentive to prepare for testimony or stick to their guns on cross like the actual defendant would.

Those of you who think that written words are the same as live testimony, you need to turn in your trial lawyer cards....oh wait.

Here's a thought. How about not going on national tv or writing books making claims against another individual if you have zero evidence to back it up? I realize this was a civil trial but wasn't the burden on Ventura to prove false claims were made and caused him harm? Are we to believe that any random number of potential jurors would be more biased to believe Ventura the kook over war hero Kyle? Please.

Will Kyle's book be moved to the fiction section?

 

[HoughMade]

I believe that the outcome would have been much different if Kyle had testified...or the trial had not been in Minnesota with a Minnesota jury (for more than one reason).

As for not writing about something unless you have evidence...c'mon. What was Kyle supposed to do, get notarized affidavits from 3 clergy members before he wrote anything in his book? The witnesses saw Ventura getting up off the ground, threatening Kyle after the fact, and one of them saw someone hit Ventura, but could not identify Kyle. To me, I would be surprised if some, or all, of those 8 jury members leaned towards Ventura because they agreed with what he said that got him hit.

Witnesses rebut Ventura's assertion that fight was a lie | Star Tribune

 

[Blackhawk2001]

Here's a thought. How about not going on national tv or writing books making claims against another individual if you have zero evidence to back it up? I realize this was a civil trial but wasn't the burden on Ventura to prove false claims were made and caused him harm? Are we to believe that any random number of potential jurors would be more biased to believe Ventura the kook over war hero Kyle? Please.

Will Kyle's book be moved to the fiction section?

To address your first point: Kyle said Ventura said those things; Ventura said it never happened. Kyle wasn't around to make his case.

To address your second point: The publishers have said that future editions of the book will not contain the contested material.

Personally, I think Ventura's claim is crap; the jury should have awarded him $1 in damages - and a boot to the head for being an unrepentant *******.

 

[hornadylnl]

I believe that the outcome would have been much different if Kyle had testified...or the trial had not been in Minnesota with a Minnesota jury (for more than one reason).

As for not writing about something unless you have evidence...c'mon. What was Kyle supposed to do, get notarized affidavits from 3 clergy members before he wrote anything in his book? The witnesses saw Ventura getting up off the ground, threatening Kyle after the fact, and one of them saw someone hit Ventura, but could not identify Kyle. To me, I would be surprised if some, or all, of those 8 jury members leaned towards Ventura because they agreed with what he said that got him hit.

Witnesses rebut Ventura's assertion that fight was a lie | Star Tribune

So I can go pick any random 8 people in Minnesota and the majority or all believe that more SEALs should die? BULL****.

Personally, I think profiting off your veteran status is no less douchy than suing a dead mans widow. I give zero credibility to any veteran who wants me to pay him to tell me what a Billy bad ass war hero he is.

 

[HoughMade]

What makes you think juries are picked randomly? I assure you that Ventura's attorneys did everything they could to identify and keep prospective jurors who their research told them would be anti-war and pro former Governor. As for Minneapolis residents....80% anti-war? Not hard to believe.

I don't know what happened in that bar, so true or not, I have no opinion. What i do have an opinion on is the dynamics of how a trial works. I firmly believe a trial is a search for truth, but I know with certainty, from personal experience, that there are numerous factors which conspire to keep it from always finding the truth. That is why a verdict may be how cases are decided, but it doesn't necessarily mean that's what happened....which we will never know.

As for profiting off of veteran status, I have a tendency to agree, but that goes for both sides in this case....and numerous politicians including Dwight Eisenhower, Teddy Roosevelt, John Kennedy, Richard Nixon, etc.

 

[hornadylnl]

What makes you think juries are picked randomly? I assure you that Ventura's attorneys did everything they could to identify and keep prospective jurors who their research told them would be anti-war and pro former Governor. As for Minneapolis residents....80% anti-war? Not hard to believe.

I don't know what happened in that bar, so true or not, I have no opinion. What i do have an opinion on is the dynamics of how a trial works. I firmly believe a trial is a search for truth, but I know with certainty, from personal experience, that there are numerous factors which conspire to keep it from always finding the truth. That is why a verdict may be how cases are decided, but it doesn't necessarily mean that's what happened....which we will never know.

As for profiting off of veteran status, I have a tendency to agree, but that goes for both sides in this case....and numerous politicians including Dwight Eisenhower, Teddy Roosevelt, John Kennedy, Richard Nixon, etc.

Does Voire Dire not exist in civilian trials? If Ventura's lawyers were able to slate the jury that heavily in his favor, Kyle's wife picked a **** poor attorney.


Lets say I start a thread here about an INGO advertiser. I make the claim that while in his shop, the advertiser told me that he's rooting for Al Qaeda to win and does a cartwheel every time an American soldier is killed. After all the subsequent posts stating that they'll never set foot in that advertisers store again and he sues me for damages, do I have any burden to prove he said those things? I made the claim that caused him damage, why should he have to suffer damage if I have zero proof of the claim?

 

[HoughMade]

Yes, there is voir dire, but you don't get to exclude everyone you don't like and even if people answer truthfully: "but do you think you can be fair" seems to cure everything.

Kyle did not have "0" proof. Had be been alive he would have had his own testimony....which is all that Ventura had.

 

[IndyDave1776]

Yes, there is voir dire, but you don't get to exclude everyone you don't like and even if people answer truthfully: "but do you think you can be fair" seems to cure everything.

Kyle did not have "0" proof. Had be been alive he would have had his own testimony....which is all that Ventrua had.

It amazes me how difficult it is to get the point across that it is remarkably easy to win an argument against someone who is already dead.