[J]urors 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... Mr. Ventura vehemently denied claims in the book that he had made derogatory statements about fellow members of the military while in [a California bar in 2006], or had said at one point during the evening that the SEALs deserved “to lose a few.”
July 29, 2014
Jesse Ventura wins a big defamation verdict against the former Navy SEAL who wrote “American Sniper."
The estate of Chris Kyle now owes Ventura $1.8 million.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
Posts
30 comments:
Sounds like Ventura to go after a dead man's family for money.
How can it be proved that the deceased Mr. Kyle "knew all along the accusations were false?"
Sounds like both sets of witnesses supported their guy. The losers were Kyle's wife and kids, but I am not at all sure that they will miss $1.8 million, else this court case would have ended long ago.
Ventura's a clown and it is a shame to see him win this vendetta.
It seems strange that they would have found Ventura was defamed, given that there were witnesses who supported Kyle's version of events.
"It seems strange that they would have found Ventura was defamed, given that there were witnesses who supported Kyle's version of events."
That's why one goes to trial: There's a question of fact to be resolved.
The Court in Florida said Zimmerman of Traevon fame was a public person and therefore can't be libelled. But Ventura is not?
Shit like this and Roe, Bush v Gore, eminent domain, ObamaCare makes average people believe the law is a joke and the little guy has no chance. And they are right.
Whatever kind of infamy Ventura sought to annul by this verdict, he will find no vindication. Filing a lawsuit, like the REMF he is, and then getting a sizable judgement against the family of a deceased real hero -- this he will never live down.
I am not sure I would want to publicly attack and repeatedly annoy the SEAL fraternity with boastful, stupid behaviors that bring dishonor to the uniform. These are not the kinds of guys you want to royally piss-off, and their memories are long.
Ventura may come to regret this pyrrhic victory.
I think today one goes to trial to find out how twelve people too stupid to figure out how to avoid jury duty think about your claim.
Hope Jesse uses the money he stole from a widow wisely.
But, then, did Jesse ever do anything wise?
Nothing could defame Jesse Ventura's reputation more than pursuing this suit against a widow and her children. A Pyrrhic victory.
That's why one goes to trial: There's a question of fact to be resolved.
Yes, but back here in reality that's not what trials actually do.
I just find it odd that people would decide to take money from one person and give it to another when, objectively speaking, it is impossible to say with any certainty that the person losing the money did anything wrong.
"The Court in Florida said Zimmerman of Traevon fame was a public person and therefore can't be libelled. But Ventura is not?"
It's not that a public figure "can't be libeled." It's that the First Amendment trumps the civil liability to some extent. But the public figure can still win, but he must prove that there was "actual malice" in making the false statement. "Actual malice" means that the statement was made knowing that it was false or with recklessness about whether it was false.
The other important aspect is that this verdict only required a preponderance of the evidence. For whatever reason the jury believed Ventura's witnesses more than Kyle's.
I believe in a he said/she said situation like this the appropriate verdict is to say the burden of proof cannot be met. A 50-50 verdict should yield no judgment and the jury should be able to tell the judge "look, it's not that we can't decide, it's that we have decided that there is no way any reasonable jury could decide one way or the other." And then the judge should find for the defendant and dismiss the case.
Also, there should be plenty of appealable issues of law for Mr. Kyle. It's quite likely that the decision will be set aside because as a matter of law Jesse Ventura could never reasonably prove a detriment to his reputation. An appellate court could easily reach that conclusion.
I was surprised by the verdict, but not entirely so. My first thought on hearing what Kyle said was "if that's not true, Jesse will sue." The part about him saying "we deserve to lose few" seemed off, but the rest of it was easily believable. I'm most surprised at the damages award. I think Jesse's reputation was pretty bad because of his own doing, even before this lawsuit. It also seems a tough sell that so much of the book sales was due to this story.
He'll have to be content with the cash, because he'll never get his reputation back after suing a hero's widow. Nor will he be welcome at any SEAL functions in future, I'm thinking.
If Ventura is wise, he'll donate his award to Wounded Warriors.
In pro wrestling it is very important to nurture a persona that will get over with the crowd. Sometimes it is all an act. Sometimes it is an exaggerated version of his or her own personality.
I am starting to sense which one of those methods was implemented by Jesse "The Body" Ventura. Perhaps without the exaggeration.
Still better than wrestling as the guy who poops the hall.
If Ventura is wise, he'll donate his award to Wounded Warriors.
A wiser move would be to tell Kyle's widow she can keep the money.
He keeps saying "it isn't about the money"... so why not?
It's not that a public figure "can't be libeled."
It's that a public figure can't be libeled by any part of the Democratic establishment (which is also empowered to determine who is a public figure).
the public figure can still win, but he must prove that there was "actual malice" in making the false statement. "Actual malice" means that the statement was made knowing that it was false or with recklessness about whether it was false.
NBC had a preconceived storyline that Zimmerman was a racist because that's the story that would benefit the Democrats, so they took a tape of Zimmerman in which he listed reasons why Martin looked suspicious and didn't mention Martin's race until he was specifically asked, and they mutilated that tape to make it sound like Zimmerman thought Martin was suspicious because of his race.
Bob said...
He'll have to be content with the cash, because he'll never get his reputation back after suing a hero's widow. Nor will he be welcome at any SEAL functions in future, I'm thinking.
Yes. Ventura is a former SEAL but I imagine he's managed to severely piss off the rest of that community. There are some people you really shouldn't piss off if you know what's good for you.
"I am not sure I would want to publicly attack and repeatedly annoy the SEAL fraternity with boastful, stupid behaviors that bring dishonor to the uniform. These are not the kinds of guys you want to royally piss-off, and their memories are long."
Jesse Ventura is himself a part of the SEAL fraternity...though he may not be welcomed by his fraternity after this. (This is not to imply criticism of Ventura on my part; I don't know anything about the suit or whether Ventura was wronged and in the right or whether he was not wronged and therefore, er, in the wrong.)
As to SEALs having long memories and not being the kind of guys to piss off...what do you mean? Do you suggest they might one day do physical harm to Ventura, or to others who piss them off? Even if these guys are tough customers, if one of them has libeled someone, should the libeled party not sue to clear his name in order to avoid pissing them off?
Cool, Ventura was not a SEAL. He was U.S Navy Underwater Demolitions, but he wasn't a SEAL. UDT was Special Forces...not SEAL
Gadfly - you think they won't miss $1.8 million? Ventura asked for $5-15 million.
I believe anything anyone says about Jesse Ventura now.
I don’t care much for Jesse Ventura (I was part of the 63 percent of Minnesotans who voted for one of the other guys) but the law shouldn’t depend on whether you like the guy or not. The fact is that a jury found that he was defamed and as a public figure, he had an incredibly high burden of proof which he met. He was able to show that he suffered damages (by showing how his income had dropped off after the book was published and the author falsely accused him publicly of crashing the memorial service and saying that a fellow SEAL deserved to die) and also that the author was unjustly enriched by his defamation of Ventura. The jury awarded him $500,000 for his damages and $1.345 million for the unjust enrichment. I don’t see anything in the facts that suggests that either was an unjust result although it’s possible that the courts may adjust the latter figure.
Some have questioned whether Ventura should have brought the lawsuit or continued to pursue it after the defendant had died. I don’t think it was inappropriate for him to do either. Ventura was able to prove that he suffered real damages and that the one who defamed him also profited by inflicting those damages. While Ventura may have been (I’ve read no accounts that contradict this) willing to settle initially for just an apology and a public retraction the Defendant refused and that’s how they ended up in court. At that point the only way Ventura could receive the vindication (a public admission that Ventura had not wished for a fellow veteran to be killed in the line of duty – which was immensely damaging to someone like Ventura who was proud of his veteran’s status and had leveraged it as part of his career in politics and the media) was a jury verdict that the statements were false and that the guy who made them know that they were false when he made them which is pretty much what he received yesterday. Having gone through the expense and trouble to prove in court what Kyle refused to do initially, I see no reason why Ventura should feel obligated to refuse any of the damages he was awarded.
Two questions:
1. If Ventura sued Kyle for assault, would the eleven witnesses have been sufficient to convict Kyle?
2. Why can't Kyle's widow sue Ventura for exactly the same thing he sued her for? He defamed her husband by calling him a liar, and they potentially lost income (through book sales) because of it.
At this point, Ventura is too poisonous for the WWE to touch. They have SOME standards.
In pro wrestling it is very important to nurture a persona that will get over with the crowd. Sometimes it is all an act. Sometimes it is an exaggerated version of his or her own personality.
ANY wrestler who was actually successful just used an exaggerated version of their own personality (even Hulk Hogan is, basically, a cartoon character in real life and always was). The completely fake ones never catch on well.
1. If Ventura sued Kyle for assault, would the eleven witnesses have been sufficient to convict Kyle?
Moot question since Ventura said that the assault never happened.
2. Why can't Kyle's widow sue Ventura for exactly the same thing he sued her for? He defamed her husband by calling him a liar, and they potentially lost income (through book sales) because of it.
It’s not defamation if the statements (even if harmful) are true. The jury by finding that Kyle’s statements about Ventura were defamatory have essentially proved Ventura’s earlier statement(s) that Kyle lied.
One can only hope he gets beaten to death by someone who then successfully sues his widow for pain and bruising to his knuckles.
Law isn't justice, and I for one hope this slug faces the latter soon.
1. If Ventura sued Kyle for assault, would the eleven witnesses have been sufficient to convict Kyle?
Moot question since Ventura said that the assault never happened.
You missed my point: If instead of suing him for defamation Ventura sued him for assault, and if instead of claiming he hit him Kyle claimed he didn't, would the eleven witnesses have been sufficient to convict Kyle? I suspect they would. Eleven witnesses would have been enough to establish that the event took place. If Kyle brought forth witnesses who said they didn't see it, that wouldn't have obviated the witnesses who said they did see it. My point is if you reverse the roles, it would be a slam dunk case: the guy claiming the assault didn't happen would lose because of the eleven witnesses who say it did.
You missed my point: If instead of suing him for defamation Ventura sued him for assault, and if instead of claiming he hit him Kyle claimed he didn't, would the eleven witnesses have been sufficient to convict Kyle? I suspect they would.
And you’d still be wrong since (per Ventura’s interview after the verdict was announced) apparently none of the eleven witnesses testified that they say Kyle hit Ventura .
Post a Comment