You might not like these people, but this decision was very wrong and evil. These people's opinions are hated by the masses, so the rest of society is trying to stomp them out. Even if it means unfairly confiscating away all their money. A total of a little over $25 million was awarded, but of that $12 million was ordered from a man who had intentionally run over protesters with his car out of hate during the protest, killing one and injuring several others. (That man has been sentenced to life in prison so being ordered to pay $12 million is mostly a moot point) So instead this discussion will focus on that other $13 million. The jurors found the organizers of the rally guilty under the state's "conspiracy" law, and blamed them for the violence. But did those organizers actually organize violence? That might be a little bit more of a tricky question and the answer not so straightforward. (I would say the answer is mostly no) There's always some law that can be applied to anyone someone does not like. That $13 million will presumably be awarded to plaintiffs who say they suffered "physical or emotional" damages as a result of the rally. The jury found that lawyers for the plaintiffs proved a claim of racial or religious violence under Virginia law. The panel awarded two plaintiffs $250,000 each in compensatory damages and $200,000 each in punitive damages, to be paid by several defendants. The case represented part of a decades-old strategy of using civil lawsuits to hobble "hate groups" by attacking their finances. The jury was unable to reach unanimous decisions on the federal conspiracy claim. Of course conservative news organizations are mostly deciding not to touch this story, since there were some unsavory groups that showed up at that protest, and they fear it will be embarrassing and possibly reflect badly on conservatives and the Right. But progressive news organizations seem to be putting a huge slant and bias on the story. coverage on the story from NPR: https://www.npr.org/2021/11/23/1058024314/charlottesville-unite-the-right-trial-verdict During court testimony, the defendants tried to distance themselves from Fields (the murderer) and said they only engaged in violence when they were attacked. So they were ordered to pay this money despite inadequate evidence that they are actually responsible for what Fields did, nor did they initiate violence on any of the protesters who did not first attack them. Posts that the defendants had made on internet forums was also presented to the jury as "evidence of intent". The defendants said some of their posts were merely hyperbolic, were not meant to be interpreted entirely seriously, and should be protected by First Amendment (freedom of the press) rights. Civil trials have a lower burden than criminal ones to prove their case. As a result, the plaintiffs did not need to prove their case beyond a reasonable doubt, but instead only by a "preponderance of the evidence". It seems to me this decision by the jury was not even entirely logical. It was just based on emotion, conflating different things together, and dislike of the defendants. Bankrupt them, take away all their money. Just because they organized a protest rally. Amidst the protest rally, there was an individual who committed a murderous act. But the other defendants should not be legally responsible for that. They also came to the rally anxious to fight against anyone who attacked them, and they knew there would be counter-protesters who would attack them because they hated their beliefs. This still doesn't sound like it justifies the monetary damage judgement against them.
In this country, the judicial system is the mechanism we use to address and settle issues/violations of the law that may occur. Each side agrees to abide by the decision(s) handed down by the court; some decisions you may feel are right and others wrong, however ideally you move forward with your life and put the decision behind you. Furthermore, the organizers of the rally have learned an important lesson and having learned that lesson, move on to their next chapter as opposed to spend time opining on the decision.
The court can - and will - seize their property and garnish their future income until the judgment is satisfied. Just ask Richard Butler and the Aryan Nation. Their prize compound in Idaho is an anti-racism "peace park" these days.
What I find truly comical about this fiasco is that the key leader Jordan/Jason Kessler was an Occupy Wall-street Obama operative. This is how mainstream supporters got sidelined & neo-nazis got highlighted in the front. Big problem here is the issue's been muddied w/ so many lies about Trump that nobody cares about what really happened.
A lot of folks say that, you may be right, but if we agree on what I said about the topic being muddied by such lies than we're doing pretty good.
Let me ask you a question. How are these people responsible for any of the violence that happened at the event? Are they really responsible in such a way that that should translate into direct legal financial liability? If they might have made some internet posts that encouraged others people to use violence against those who were physically attacking them, does that make them responsible? Part of this, I think they're just blaming the organizers of the rally because they know they're never going to get the money from the guy who actually ran people over and is actually responsible. That's human psychology; shift the blame to associates when it is impossible to punish the person you are really angry at.
That logic does not give them the right to turn people into financial slaves. If the courts violated my God given rights in such a manner there would be no rolling over and "accepting" it.
If we followed your course, then there'd be anarchy. The mechanism is used for the specific purpose of avoiding anarchy. It would be better to change the laws/constitution in that case.
It's not anarchy. It's tyranny from woke government leaders. Rebellion will result from tyranny. This is nothing more than an attempt to stifle free speech. These individuals had nothing to do with what occurred. They only excersized their right to assemble. They can appeal. They can take it higher in the judicial system and if that doesn't work they can deny them the money and defend themselves from persecution.
That's strictly subjective on your part. Others might not agree with you; hence the judicial system we use to decide the outcome.
It's not subjective at all. There is no coordination from what occurred to the "unite the right" leaders except for their excersize of free speech. It's a direct violation of their constitutional rights. There is no middle ground here. Either you support the constitution or you are a traitor to the constitution.
Once you start labeling people as traitors due to their viewpoint that is when we agree to disagree on this; hence both you and I will have no further discussion on this in this thread. Good day.
A judge makes an oath to follow the constitution and uphold equal and fair justice. He betrayed those oaths. You can be upset by the truth all you like; the truth is still the truth. The people in government betrayed the constitution by violating and failing to protect the first amendment. You are just avoiding discussing it because you have no rebuttal to the truth.
