#legal eagle
The Brick Facade (Illustrations)
The Youtube channel Half As Interesting needs some courtroom sketches for a special episode exclusive to Nebula, a subscription-based streaming service aiming to give video creators more stability.
I created 30-40 images, most of them variations on the above. If you’re curious to see the rest, you can sign up for a free trial and watch it here.
Post link
I found something today, and I gotta share with someone. I like to watch a YouTuber called LegalEagle. Cool content, smart dude, smokin’ hot.
Was searching for sources in one of their latest and…
…WHAAAAAAT?
No, really, WHAAAAAAT?
(Looks left. Looks right.) yeah, I’m clicking that.
????
…oh. Damn, I got *got* lol.
So apparently some people actually don’t know this, but the depp trial literally was not done to determine who abused who. The “official verdict,” the final opinion of that courtroom, was that both people committed forms of abuse, but this ultimately didn’t matter, because it wasn’t even the subject of the lawsuit.
It was ONLY a defamation lawsuit, so the trial was only about whether Heard committed defamation/slander by publicly stating that she has been abused, in an article that never even specified the abuser.Because the general public could “tell” the article was about Johnny Depp and it impacted his reputation, the jury’s verdict was that this fully constituted abuse allegations, and that abuse allegations legally constitute defamation. It didn’t have to be “false” allegations or not. ANY allegations.
This means - and this is the IMPORTANT part - that if Johnny Depp actually was in fact a pure innocent cinnamon babymuffin softboy who never laid a single finger on anyone at all while some evil witch tortured him for no reason, she could have sued him and won if he had been the first one to talk about it.
Let’s reiterate: this trial decided that –>NEITHER<– person should have been allowed to talk about their abuse in public without the risk of being sued. Neither of them.
If you don’t know how “legal precedent” works, it means that courts can be required to apply the same verdict to cases with the same facts as a previous trial.Every single person celebrating this as a “win” for “male abuse victims” is celebrating something that would only force more abused men (along with anyone else) into hiding it more than ever. I had no interest in following any of this story and didn’t think it was my business, but now it’s quite possibly thrown millions of people under the bus and made their lives more difficult.
OKAY That’s literally not what “legal precedent” means in American Law. To have a legal precedent, a judge needs to formally write out specifically that this is what this trial meant. I’m not a lawyer. I’m not explaining this further. Just watch the LegalEagle video on it.
Uvalde and Police “Duty”
