3 ms·
> These words mean precisely what a jury of your peers interpret them to mean. And how do we find out what that is? We find out by looking at what happened in
by pdonis 4y ago
> These words mean precisely what a jury of your peers interpret them to mean.
And how do we find out what that is? We find out by looking at what happened in actual cases.
In the Gibson case that you cited, I saw nothing that indicated that the jury awarded damages based on harassment by unrelated third parties. There is a mention of Grandpa Gibson "breaking his back", but there is nothing to indicate that the jury awarded any damages based on, for example, medical or other costs associated with that back injury. According to your position, damages for that should have been included. On mine, they shouldn't (the Gibsons would have to recover such damages from whoever was pounding on their apartment door in the middle of the night). So this instance supports my position, not yours.
Similarly, in the Alex Jones cases, I see no indication that the juries awarded any damages based on harassment by unrelated third parties. Which, again, is consistent with the position I have been arguing.
- ncallaway 4y ago> there is nothing to indicate that the jury awarded any damages based on, for example, medical or other costs associated with that back injury "I don't see something" is not evidence that it doesn't exist. > So this instance supports my position, not yours. Does it? You haven't cited anything beyond "I haven't seen it". If you want to claim it supports your position, show your work. Show the breakdown of the $11M in damages, and show that it excludes property damages, and the medical damages. "I see no indication that..." Again, I'm not going to carry this conversation forward unless you actually start citing sources, and pointing to the breakdown of damages if you claim it supports your position. For all you've demonstrated, "I've seen no indication" may only be evidence that you haven’t looked.