Suit by Covington Catholic student against Washington Post dismissed

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Regardless of how much he settled for, Sandman will not see much of that money. Most of that money will go to the lawyers that he hired. They get paid big bucks out of any payout. My guess is that they will get more than half of what he received and he will get less than half.

They probably agreed on something in the industry-standard 33-39% range. Why would you expect it to be any different in this case? Are you really that stupid?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:So Sandmann gave up.

Good. Wrong political climate for smug white jerk who wants to deny women their rights.

I guess you haven't been paying attention.
The title of this thread is not accurate.

After the suit was dismissed, it was refiled.
Sandmann settled with the WaPo.

So much for the "smug, white jerk," huh?
Two down - 6 to go.

He settled for almost nothing.

Citation?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I think that kid is a little sh#t.
But as a parent I’m disappointed in this ruling...

This culture of reporting what is trending is bad for all of us.
He may be a little prick, but the whole thing was misrepresented/misreported by the media for the first day or two.

A defamation suit is the wrong way to address that.

Hitting corporations in their wallet seems to be the only way.

Filing frivolous lawsuits? Great strategy.

I totally disagree that it was frivolous, and I hope they pursue it further.

With the Washington Post? They were merely quoting statements made by others. That is not defamation. You need to stop letting emotion cloud your critical thinking. You should read the Constitution and its Amendments sometime. His lawyer should be counter sued for filing a frivolous lawsuit. He should know the elements of defamation. He probably knew it was a clunker and wasted everyone's time to enhance his own profile.

I'm not an attorney, but it's disgusting that news media sources can do that (I'm not necessarily referring to this case) without penalty.

Yes it is obvious you are not an attorney and why is it disgusting? That’s what reporting is. Do you seriously want journalists to be liable for quotes? That would be the end of newspapers and blogs and pretty much all forms of journalism.

Use you brain.

PP here. I happen to think that it's wrong for people's lives to be turned upside down (example--someone accused of abuse, rape, etc) by "quoted information" in the papers and repeated on tv stations, internet, etc. and then an often weak or buried retraction that isn't seen or heard by as many people. We all know that news media can slant the delivery of info to influence public opinion as well.

+ a million
Can't wait to pull out this thread the next time some liberal idiot is unhappy about being quoted saying idiotic things. Oh well!

I tell my liberal kids it’s a matter of time before someone falsely accuses them of something. In today’s over sensitive, insanity, the price could be very high.

Your “liberal kids” will likely rebel, as most kids do. Guess what they’re going to be as adults?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:So Sandmann gave up.

Good. Wrong political climate for smug white jerk who wants to deny women their rights.

I guess you haven't been paying attention.
The title of this thread is not accurate.

After the suit was dismissed, it was refiled.
Sandmann settled with the WaPo.

So much for the "smug, white jerk," huh?
Two down - 6 to go.

He settled for almost nothing.

Citation?
We won't wait because you can't provide it.

None needed. We're lawyers who understand how this works. Smug, entitled white boys aren't very popular right now.

What law firm do you work for? Please post it!

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:$2.5 million

Source or speculation?

Speculation, based on knowledge of similar cases. I worked for a media company. We were sued many years ago, settled for a similar amount. It was smart at the time, we would’ve lost in court with a sympathetic jury.

[Anonymous]

So much jealousy.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I think that kid is a little sh#t.
But as a parent I’m disappointed in this ruling...

This culture of reporting what is trending is bad for all of us.
He may be a little prick, but the whole thing was misrepresented/misreported by the media for the first day or two.

A defamation suit is the wrong way to address that.

Hitting corporations in their wallet seems to be the only way.

Filing frivolous lawsuits? Great strategy.

I totally disagree that it was frivolous, and I hope they pursue it further.

With the Washington Post? They were merely quoting statements made by others. That is not defamation. You need to stop letting emotion cloud your critical thinking. You should read the Constitution and its Amendments sometime. His lawyer should be counter sued for filing a frivolous lawsuit. He should know the elements of defamation. He probably knew it was a clunker and wasted everyone's time to enhance his own profile.

I'm not an attorney, but it's disgusting that news media sources can do that (I'm not necessarily referring to this case) without penalty.

Yes it is obvious you are not an attorney and why is it disgusting? That’s what reporting is. Do you seriously want journalists to be liable for quotes? That would be the end of newspapers and blogs and pretty much all forms of journalism.

Use you brain.

PP here. I happen to think that it's wrong for people's lives to be turned upside down (example--someone accused of abuse, rape, etc) by "quoted information" in the papers and repeated on tv stations, internet, etc. and then an often weak or buried retraction that isn't seen or heard by as many people. We all know that news media can slant the delivery of info to influence public opinion as well.

+ a million
Can't wait to pull out this thread the next time some liberal idiot is unhappy about being quoted saying idiotic things. Oh well!

I tell my liberal kids it’s a matter of time before someone falsely accuses them of something. In today’s over sensitive, insanity, the price could be very high.

Your “liberal kids” will likely rebel, as most kids do. Guess what they’re going to be as adults?

God, I hope they find conservatism!

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Regardless of how much he settled for, Sandman will not see much of that money. Most of that money will go to the lawyers that he hired. They get paid big bucks out of any payout. My guess is that they will get more than half of what he received and he will get less than half.

I'm sure that when you add it to the CNN settlement, plus any future settlements from the 6 remaining lawsuits, he will have done just fine.

Either way, these are victories for him.

Yay, good thing we are rewarding smug prick behavior.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:$2.5 million

Source or speculation?

Speculation, based on knowledge of similar cases. I worked for a media company. We were sued many years ago, settled for a similar amount. It was smart at the time, we would’ve lost in court with a sympathetic jury.

Cool story, bro. Sandmann's lucky if he got $25,000.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Regardless of how much he settled for, Sandman will not see much of that money. Most of that money will go to the lawyers that he hired. They get paid big bucks out of any payout. My guess is that they will get more than half of what he received and he will get less than half.

I'm sure that when you add it to the CNN settlement, plus any future settlements from the 6 remaining lawsuits, he will have done just fine.

Either way, these are victories for him.

Yay, good thing we are rewarding smug prick behavior.

No, we are punishing media outlets who publish lies about high school students.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:$2.5 million

Source or speculation?

Speculation, based on knowledge of similar cases. I worked for a media company. We were sued many years ago, settled for a similar amount. It was smart at the time, we would’ve lost in court with a sympathetic jury.

Cool story, bro. Sandmann's lucky if he got $25,000.

He got a lot more than that.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I think that kid is a little sh#t.
But as a parent I’m disappointed in this ruling...

This culture of reporting what is trending is bad for all of us.
He may be a little prick, but the whole thing was misrepresented/misreported by the media for the first day or two.

Raise your kids well and you won't have to worry about things like this.

Raise your kids well, and you won't have to worry that they'll steal, mug, and murder people.

+1
See: NYC, Chicago, Seattle, Portland, Minneapolis, etc. etc. So many poorly raised kids thinking they have the right to destroy our cities. I'll take a kid standing still and politely smiling any day.

So you prefer the smug little prick protesting against women’s rights over the people protesting against racial injustice.

That says everything we need to know about you.

DP. He was protesting without destroying anything. That says more than we need to know about YOU.

Sorry you value a window more than women’s bodily autonomy.

Nice try. Sorry that you value the life of an unborn child less than a window.

I value a fetus more than a window but not more than a woman.
Woman > fetus > window

How about you?

Based on your comments:
Fetus > window > woman

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I think that kid is a little sh#t.
But as a parent I’m disappointed in this ruling...

This culture of reporting what is trending is bad for all of us.
He may be a little prick, but the whole thing was misrepresented/misreported by the media for the first day or two.

A defamation suit is the wrong way to address that.

Hitting corporations in their wallet seems to be the only way.

Filing frivolous lawsuits? Great strategy.

I totally disagree that it was frivolous, and I hope they pursue it further.

With the Washington Post? They were merely quoting statements made by others. That is not defamation. You need to stop letting emotion cloud your critical thinking. You should read the Constitution and its Amendments sometime. His lawyer should be counter sued for filing a frivolous lawsuit. He should know the elements of defamation. He probably knew it was a clunker and wasted everyone's time to enhance his own profile.

I'm not an attorney, but it's disgusting that news media sources can do that (I'm not necessarily referring to this case) without penalty.

Yes it is obvious you are not an attorney and why is it disgusting? That’s what reporting is. Do you seriously want journalists to be liable for quotes? That would be the end of newspapers and blogs and pretty much all forms of journalism.

Use you brain.

PP here. I happen to think that it's wrong for people's lives to be turned upside down (example--someone accused of abuse, rape, etc) by "quoted information" in the papers and repeated on tv stations, internet, etc. and then an often weak or buried retraction that isn't seen or heard by as many people. We all know that news media can slant the delivery of info to influence public opinion as well.

+ a million
Can't wait to pull out this thread the next time some liberal idiot is unhappy about being quoted saying idiotic things. Oh well!

I tell my liberal kids it’s a matter of time before someone falsely accuses them of something. In today’s over sensitive, insanity, the price could be very high.

Your “liberal kids” will likely rebel, as most kids do. Guess what they’re going to be as adults?

God, I hope they find conservatism!

DP. I certainly did. I was very liberal in college and as a young adult. Sometimes, I honestly can't believe just how liberal - and stupid - I was. I finally grew up.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Cue the "he didn’t get much" posters, even though they have no idea. He got more than you.

Kid got sold up the river for clicks by the mainstream media.....he deserves every penny and what little public trust there is left in the media should erode to zero.

+100
This suit isn't about the money. It's about the larger point - which liberals seem to have missed entirely (as usual).

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I think that kid is a little sh#t.
But as a parent I’m disappointed in this ruling...

This culture of reporting what is trending is bad for all of us.
He may be a little prick, but the whole thing was misrepresented/misreported by the media for the first day or two.

Raise your kids well and you won't have to worry about things like this.

Raise your kids well, and you won't have to worry that they'll steal, mug, and murder people.

+1
See: NYC, Chicago, Seattle, Portland, Minneapolis, etc. etc. So many poorly raised kids thinking they have the right to destroy our cities. I'll take a kid standing still and politely smiling any day.

So you prefer the smug little prick protesting against women’s rights over the people protesting against racial injustice.

That says everything we need to know about you.

It's so cute that you're still peddling the fiction that violent anarchists are "protesting against racial injustice." Hint: they're not doing anything of the kind. Those protests have come and gone. Today's "protesters" in Portland, etc. are simply there for the thrill of destroying property and terrorizing police. That's it.

So yes, I would absolutely take a polite, quiet, young man holding his ground against an arrogant adult screaming in his face (for no reason, btw) over the violent thugs creating havoc and chaos in our cities. I sincerely hope none of them are your kids.