Depp and Heard Trial Result

[DMC]

Like, you guys realize you're arguing the only way to defend oneself from false accusations is to legally punish your accuser, right?  And you still don't see how laughably absurd that is?  What's next, Depp has to challenge Heard to a duel to clear his name?

[BigFatCoward]

13 minutes ago, DMC said:

This is based on both the preponderance of prior examples and a basic understanding of how American public opinion works.

Some of you lot really do think you are the centre of the universe don't you? 

Fucking mental. 

 

[DMC]

Just now, BigFatCoward said:

Some of you lot really do think you are the centre of the universe don't you? 

Fucking mental. 

 

I'm an expert in political behavior, but I feel that should be qualified because I am primarily an Americanist (in terms of what I study).  Johnny Depp and Amber Heard are both Americans.  The trial took place in Virginia and was based on an op-ed in The Washington Post.  "Mental" indeed.

[Fragile Bird]

11 minutes ago, DMC said:

Like, you guys realize you're arguing the only way to defend oneself from false accusations is to legally punish your accuser, right?  And you still don't see how laughably absurd that is?  What's next, Depp has to challenge Heard to a duel to clear his name?

Sad but true. When I was in private practice there were all kinds of clients who wanted to sue the shit out of other people as revenge for some humiliation. Most didn’t because the costs to do so sobered them up pretty quickly. 

The very rich don’t have that problem.

[Ran]

I just find it personally strange that the law offers someone a recourse to rectify what they believe to be a wrong against them that they believe has caused material harm that may arguably be measured in the tens of millions, and then they're mocked for using that recourse. If we take the viewpoint that the jury found cause to doubt Heard's claims, should it be noted that the first person to seek legal remedies for their situation was Heard herself, which she sought and received a temporary restraining order against Depp? I'm sure the diehard Deppheads mocked her for it, and... yeah, not a great look for them!

I do find it hard to believe that anyone taking this sort of anti-lawsuit position holds it very consistently, but stranger things have happened.

[DMC]

37 minutes ago, Ran said:

I just find it personally strange that the law offers someone a recourse to rectify what they believe to be a wrong against them that they believe has caused material harm that may arguably be measured in the tens of millions, and then they're mocked for using that recourse.

I'm not "mocking" Depp for using that recourse.  I'm saying pursuing lawsuits that necessarily entail a legal strategy to galvanize misogynistic public opinion by assassinating your ex-wife's character is a really gross choice for Depp to make in how to defend himself.  Acting like he didn't have other, more obviously successful options in how to repair his public image is willful ignorance at best.

[Mr. Chatywin et al.]

52 minutes ago, DMC said:

Acting like pursuing defamation lawsuits - this one because WaPo published a decidedly banal op-ed from Heard - was Depp's only recourse is just about the dumbest argument you could make.  It is so detached from the reality of multitudes of public figures that have sought forgiveness and gotten it - a well-founded and successful strategy any self-respecting publicist would immediately recommend - that it betrays either a willful and extraordinary ignorance or a blatant underlying agenda.  Like, literally, this is the behavior you're defending:

When did I say it was his only recourse? I said what seems to have really swayed public opinion is her awful testimony and that only happened because he took it to trial. Those are two different statements. If he followed your approach and did a bunch of interviews all Heard needs to do to respond is show the photos again that she says were taken after he abused her. They would likely be more impactful than anything he could say.

[Jace, Extat]

Just now, DMC said:

I'm not "mocking" Depp for using that recourse.  I'm saying pursuing lawsuits that necessarily entail a legal strategy to galvanize misogynistic public opinion by assassinating your ex-wife's character is a really gross choice for Depp to make in how to defend himself.  Acting like he didn't have other, more obviously successful options in how to repair his pubic image is willful ignorance at best.

C'mon. I resent the fact that you're being so absurdly obtuse that I now have to defend that man, but come the fuck on man. 

If Johnny Depp went on a show -which they wouldn't even book him, but let's entertain that they would- the same people in this thread saying courts should be secret, juries should be banned, and that disreputable persons favoring one's protestations of innocence is -de facto- evidence of guilt would have been screaming on Twitter to cancel Johnny Carson for letting an (alleged!) abuser use his platform to undermine Heard. I don't like one thing about this whole national disgrace, but I like even less this race to invalidate accepted forums of response to perceived slights or injustice based solely on the grounds that YOU didn't like the outcome.

The entire purpose of a trial is to undermine and expose your opponent as a liar. Duuuuh! 

Acting like Depp is some kind of special asshole for making use of the system as it is designed is just dumb. Full stop. 

She took legal actions against him, then public ones. HE HAS THE RIGHT TO RESPOND. If you don't believe that, even if you think like I do that both of these people just took a giant shit in the eye of America, then you're wrong. You're just wrong. Even if he beat Amber Heard every single day they were together and twice on his birthday, he has the right to make use of the public functions to present his case. That's literally why they're there. 

[DMC]

23 minutes ago, Tywin et al. said:

When did I say it was his only recourse? I said what seems to have really swayed public opinion is her awful testimony and that only happened because he took it to trial.

Ok, so you're saying his only effective recourse was to take it to trial.  The idea that Depp could not have defended himself in the court of public opinion without abusing the actual court system to do so is preposterous.

11 minutes ago, Babblebauble said:

If Johnny Depp went on a show -which they wouldn't even book him, but let's entertain that they would- the same people in this thread saying courts should be secret, juries should be banned, and that disreputable persons favoring one's protestations of innocence is -de facto- evidence of guilt would have been screaming on Twitter to cancel Johnny Carson for letting an (alleged!) abuser use his platform to undermine Heard.

The fuck are you talking about?  Are you seriously trying to claim any outlet wouldn't have booked Depp?  This is being absurdly obtuse.  And then more of your meandering nonsensical ramblings.

11 minutes ago, Babblebauble said:

She took legal actions against him, then public ones. HE HAS THE RIGHT TO RESPOND.

15 hours ago, DMC said:

Does Depp have the right to do so?  Absolutely.  Do I think it's gross he chose to?  Absolutely.

 

[Jace, Extat]

So if he was on Joe Rogan you'd respect him more is that what you're saying? Because I somehow fucking doubt it. I know I wouldn't have spared a single brain cell towards hearing his story if he did that. He'd be immediately guilty in my mind by dint of -not- exercising his legal options and instead engaging in a publicity war. 

 

 

[Mr. Chatywin et al.]

7 minutes ago, DMC said:

Ok, so you're saying his only effective recourse was to take it to trial.  The idea that Depp could not have defended himself in the court of public opinion without abusing the actual court system to do so is preposterous.

The only preposterous thing here is that now twice in a row you've taken something I've said and changed it to fit a narrative you're pushing. Of course there are other options and maybe they could have worked, but yes, taking this to trial is an effective recourse and it proved to be correct.

And FYI, Depp has done interviews before in which he strongly denies ever assaulting Heard. I don't follow celebrity gossip at all, but I was aware of the allegations and I don't recall many people defending him after he swore he was innocent. 

[Jace, Extat]

Ugh, I suddenly have some sympathy for lawyers. I can't believe I'm here defending Johnny Depp's  right to a public hearing of his case. Much less that I have to defend the practice of jury by peers. 

I hate rich celebrities who get to have the best lawyers and leverage the system to their benefit. Much as I hate the common person. 

But it's literally never occurred to me to deny either their basic legal rights; to be heard and to hear in court.

[DMC]

1 minute ago, Babblebauble said:

He'd be immediately guilty in my mind by dint of -not- exercising his legal options and instead engaging in a publicity war. 

The legal option he pursued is, inherently and necessarily, a publicity war.  And I have no fucking clue why you're bringing Joe Rogan into this.

1 minute ago, Tywin et al. said:

The only preposterous thing here is that now twice in a row you've taken something I've said and changed it to fit a narrative you're pushing. Of course there are other options and maybe they could have worked, but yes, taking this to trial is an effective recourse and it proved to be correct.

The preposterous thing is you keep on not addressing my argument.  Obviously, yes, turns out pursuing defamation lawsuits eventually worked for him.  I'm saying, for like the eighth time, there were far more easier - and more obviously successful - recourses for him that didn't necessarily entail galvanizing misogynistic hate towards Heard.  Get back to me when you actually have a response for that.

[DMC]

1 minute ago, Babblebauble said:

Ugh, I suddenly have some sympathy for lawyers. I can't believe I'm here defending Johnny Depp's  right to a public hearing of his case. Much less that I have to defend the practice of jury by peers. 

Maybe you should try reading and realize no one is arguing Johnny Depp doesn't have a right to do what he did.

[Spockydog]

This thread is almost as wild as the actual freakin' court case.

 

[Ser Scot A Ellison]

9 minutes ago, Spockydog said:

This thread is almost as wild as the actual freakin' court case.

 

Agreed.

[Jace, Extat]

11 minutes ago, DMC said:

Maybe you should try reading and realize no one is arguing Johnny Depp doesn't have a right to do what he did.

No, you're just arguing that it somehow adds to the docket of his scumbaggery. Thanks for making that distinction for us, Professor. I'm sure you were confused because I didn't make the time to create an extra sentence where I acknowledge that you're only arguing the optics of the situation and that I'm, in turn, arguing against the very idea of forming an opinion like that. Me reinforcing his RIGHT to do something is definitely not me specifically going out of my fucking way to make you feel heard enough that you're only talking about the OPTICS and what it reveals to you of his character and (presumably) therefore adds to his lack of credibility or worthiness of a favorable verdict. 

Professor, can you learn me something else that wouldn't pass muster in a fifth grade debate club?

[butterbumps!]

@DMC I just want to say I appreciate the point I think you're making regarding how nuclear Depp went in bringing the suit.  There are ways to counter the claim that he's a wife beater that do not involve her total public humiliation and complete discrediting.  However, I confess that I'm not sure a rehab tour could be nearly as effective for him without annihilating her character, and that was 100% the goal of doing this through trial, because there is, in fact, loads of evidence he abused her. This is monstrous to you and I because we both believe he's a wife beater.  It's a supremely dick move to be guilty of spousal abuse and counter it this way, but he needed a way for her to look even worse than him (because, again, mounds of evidence that people are for some reason pretending isn't there?) and idk if anything but a televised trial could have done that.

[Mr. Chatywin et al.]

17 minutes ago, DMC said:

The preposterous thing is you keep on not addressing my argument.  Obviously, yes, turns out pursuing defamation lawsuits eventually worked for him.  I'm saying, for like the eighth time, there were far more easier - and more obviously successful - recourses for him that didn't necessarily entail galvanizing misogynistic hate towards Heard.  Get back to me when you actually have a response for that.

I addressed it by saying doing a bunch of interviews is unlikely to change anything positively for him because of the pictures and that they could actually backfire on him. He'd have to do interviews in which he'd really get pressed and when on the stand that's when he performed the worst according to the recaps I've read. If you want to go a non-trial route I'd start by bridging the issue rather than attacking it head on. He'd probably be better off issuing a press release strongly denying most of Heard's claims while acknowledging the relationship was emotionally abusive, that it was mutual in nature and then throw in something like it's true he threw a phone at her just like it's true she threw a vodka bottle at him, sending him to the hospital and causing him to lose part of his finger. Then the key is to bridge away from that and discuss how all of this has caused him to reflect on his life recently and that what's clear is his substance abuse has spiraled out of control and that he's going away for extensive rehab and therapy. Then maybe he can try to get some smaller roles or do some indy work and try to rebuild his reputation while maintaining he's moving on from his horrible marriage with Heard. Continuing to address it keeps it relevant. This is a very common approach in the public relations world and I think it would be more impactful than setting up high profile interviews.

[DMC]

3 minutes ago, Babblebauble said:

Professor, can you learn me something else that wouldn't pass muster in a fifth grade debate club?

Nope.  You are hopeless.

2 minutes ago, butterbumps! said:

However, I confess that I'm not sure a rehab tour could be nearly as effective for him without annihilating her character, and that was 100% the goal of doing this through trial, because there is, in fact, loads of evidence he abused her. This is monstrous to you and I because we both believe he's a wife beater.  It's a supremely dick move to be guilty of spousal abuse and counter it this way, but he needed a way for her to look even worse than him (because, again, mounds of evidence that people are for some reason pretending isn't there?) and idk if anything but a televised trial could have done that.

I tend to agree with Ty and the general consensus that the biggest shift in public opinion was Heard hurting herself in her testimony.  Obviously, yes, Depp couldn't have forced her to do that via a PR campaign.  But of course, Depp suing her for defamation didn't force Heard's testimony either.