I am amazed that a dumb ass tard like yourself can generate enough
brain power to type your bull shit…..
I would bet you couldn’t type and fart at the same time without blowing a fuse………
Do you understand simple math?
If I make a million a year and your dumb ass makes 100,000. a year, you do understand
that if we were both taxed at 10% I would pay 100,000. and your dumb ass would pay 10,000.
Later you Super Duper Shit….
oooOOooo, Haiku
I wouldnt be. The punishment should equal the crime. The only time I support a large settlement is when consequences are severe like certain death or drastic and permanent reduction in quality of life due to negligent or intentional malfeasance. I'm talking people being robbed of their livelihood and excessively traumatized. Or...smaller transgressions carried out en masse with a paper trail of diabolic intention.
In the case of this kid, he will live on just fine and has been mostly exonerated of any wrong doing. At worst, he has suffered some undue trauma and likely had to watch his back for a bit, so he does deserve something maybe in the low millions.
From who? For what?
Hey if I go stand nose-to-nose with somebody and smirk, can I get some low millions too? I'm not picky, I'll even take medium millions.
And here I thought you had to actually work for that sort of thing.
Some prominent jounalists and pundits framed the kid to be a bad guy before getting the full story. They got the story wrong...or not entirely correct..which lead to your standard social media pitchfork mob reigning down on the poor kid, his family, and school.
If that's true, if that happend, see if you can answer the question that's been sitting here unanswered for the two months since Smirk Day ---
---- where is it?
Gotta be somewhere. You can't sue for libel without the libel, can you.
Where is this "framing"? How can you get a story 'wrong' when all it is is a video of a kid smirking? The story was "there's this video out". Which....... there
was.
Now HOW does that amount to "framing"? Is the kid claiming it wasn't him?
"Pundits" don't count btw. Pundits aren't journalists, are they.
He's a minor. Smirking isnt a crime worthy of what he got in blowback which was generated by the misleading headlines and editorials. The kid got death threats. That isnt acceptable and the disseminators of the incorrect narrative are culpable.
AGAIN ---
Show us those incorrect narratives, and we'll (finally) get started.
This is really not a complex question.
I'm not here to formally debate and do the work for you. I'm simply attempting to be fair based on my understanding of the situation. You can choose to ignore me if you dont agree. Or you can go look yourself. I've pretty much laid out what I have.
Hey, if you're going to assert that something happened, then you assume the burden of proof with it that it DID happen.
Without that ---- it didn't happen. And if it didn't happen.......... there is no case.
As I said, this isn't complex. I put this question up two months ago. I have yet to get a single shred of evidence.
Not one.
Now then, if a lawsuit is going to try to make the case that Person X was harmed in the public mind.... and nobody in the public can point to that being done..... it's frivolous litigation. Simple as that. Unless you can explain how a suit can be brought with no evidence at all.
"Evidence" means a real, hard, quantifiable record ---- not the creeping mythology memes of partisan hacks. Something MUST exist. A lot of people use "Beam me up Scotty" as a quote, but in fact it never happened.