CNN's Joe Lockhart attacks Sandmann as 'snot nose entitled kid' after network's defamation suit

1. When you have the actual news video that CNN had that if shown in its entirety, would prove CNN knowingly falsified their claim
2. Using a 17 year old underage kid as your point of malice for your own news ratings
3. Causing hundreds of death threats to him and his family nationally
4. Causing the closing of his school
5. Destroying just about any future this kid would have to even get accepted to a college or job because of the negative exposure

You live for the day you get a case like this to play it out in front of a jury. A huge media cable news provider knowingly destroying the life of a 17 year old for their own financial gain?

CNN bought and paid for Sandmans silence. So did MSNBC before the first page of the lawsuit was even answered.

Had the law firm put this in front of a jury, they would have won huge PLUS destroyed CNN and MSNBC in the process.
They don't just hand out money to anyone who files a lawsuit without even defending themselves. EVER

But you tell yourself what ever makes it work for you

 

And yet you’ve said so little.

 

1. When you have the actual news video that CNN had that if shown in its entirety, would prove CNN knowingly falsified their claim
2. Using a 17 year old underage kid as your point of malice for your own news ratings
3. Causing hundreds of death threats to him and his family nationally
4. Causing the closing of his school
5. Destroying just about any future this kid would have to even get accepted to a college or job because of the negative exposure

You live for the day you get a case like this to play it out in front of a jury. A huge media cable news provider knowingly destroying the life of a 17 year old for their own financial gain?

CNN bought and paid for Sandmans silence. So did MSNBC before the first page of the lawsuit was even answered.

Had the law firm put this in front of a jury, they would have won huge PLUS destroyed CNN and MSNBC in the process.
They don't just hand out money to anyone who files a lawsuit without even defending themselves. EVER

But you tell yourself what ever makes it work for you

 

And yet Sandmann’s team didn’t pursue this slam dunk?
They were looking for a quick payout and they got it.

 

I don't wear hats! That's my simple answer.

 

You don't need to pursue a slam dunk when you already have it.

And you don't throw away such an opportunity when you have a slam dunk unless they pay you

 

LOL, what??

 

Me neither. They make my hair go flat.

 

1. When you have the actual news video that CNN had that if shown in its entirety, would prove CNN knowingly falsified their claim
2. Using a 17 year old underage kid as your point of malice for your own news ratings
3. Causing hundreds of death threats to him and his family nationally
4. Causing the closing of his school
5. Destroying just about any future this kid would have to even get accepted to a college or job because of the negative exposure

You live for the day you get a case like this to play it out in front of a jury. A huge media cable news provider knowingly destroying the life of a 17 year old for their own financial gain?

CNN bought and paid for Sandmans silence. So did MSNBC before the first page of the lawsuit was even answered. And now 6 more outlets are also negotiating with Sandman as well.

Had the law firm put this in front of a jury, they would have won huge PLUS destroyed CNN and MSNBC in the process.
They don't just hand out money to anyone who files a lawsuit without even defending themselves. EVER

They already had the slam dunk. Thats what CNN paid for, Thats what MSNBC paid for, and thats what the other 6 will pay for.

 

Really? Not even for all the prestige and publicity?
Would have cost them around 200k to get the case thrown out. The kid maybe got half of that. Probably less.

And hey, that’s nothing to sneeze at. Who couldn’t do with an extra few thousand in the bank.

 

Just how do you get a case thrown out where the plaintiff has actual video of your crime?
Please, stop the leftist dreaming.

 

Speaking of this snot nose, wasn't there a big hubbub a few weeks ago where his lawyer was jumping all over somebody else at CNN for "discussing" the settlement amount??

Wasn't that going to be a big thing as well??

https://lawandcrime.com/media/lawye...nd-others-for-tweeting-about-defamation-case/

Guess not... But opportunists gonna opportune (that sounded better in my head)

 

You argue that the damages do not warrant the payout that the plaintiff is seeking.

And given that the average wrongful death settlement comes to somewhere between six and seven figures, one of these news agencies could have backed over this kid with their van and paid less than you’re suggesting he received.

Face it, kid got paid, just not the ludicrous sum you all seem to think it was.

 

Good point. You’d think if they racked in millions off the settlement they’d be happy to let future defendants know it. Sounds like he didn’t want peanuts to beget peanuts.

 

In retrospect, the kid did well for himself

 

First, you say $25k. Then, you double it to $50k. Then, you really do admit that "no one has any idea what he actually got."
Perhaps it is wisest to bow out and admit he will make a pile of money all taken from the most biased media sources in the country. I would love to see the signature on that check.
The executives and talking heads at CNN had to be grinding their teeth during his entire speech.
Good job Nick, nice to see you won your first two suits. That should make the last three a breeze.

 

He didn’t win any suits. They settled out of court.
Cheaper to pay the kid to leave than to argue the case in court. Given that, the kid didn’t get much. Certainly not the millions he was seeking.

That being said, who couldn’t do with a few extra grand in the bank?

 

You're so cruel!!!

 

You can be one million percent certain if CNN settled for $25,000 they would make sure it was found out. Add a minimum 0 to that and perhaps two 0's. No one settles a 250,000,000 law suit for 25K.

Calling that brave young man a snot nosed kid, might just be in violation of that settlement, so get some more 0's out to add.

 

Its a win in my book

 

I guess I don't understand the conversations value. What difference does it make to anyone how much the settlement was for? CNN did what democrats have said was underhanded, corrupt, etc because the details of the agreement where CNN settled weren't publicly disclosed, or were capped by NDAs. It seems to matter to the left when it hurts a political adversary of theirs, but when it affects one of their allies, it must be dismissible because otherwise their allie, CNN in this case, looks like the corrupt thing they described adversaries as.

I think it is enough that CNN settled, because if you're CNN you don't want to be those b&stards that bullied a 16 year old. And frankly, that's the business calculation here. CNN PAID to staunch the bleeding that a continued story about their bullying would have perpetuated.

CNN are surely still the bully here, and the statement from Sandman about his experience surely tells the cautionary tale of when media take it on themselves to destroy folks. And thankfully, that now has a cost, at least for CNN. Their actions were deplorable, they acted out of both spite and malice, and not they have paid folks off (democrats call this corruption) to be silent.

So, who cares about the amount? The experience of having CNN had to pay off folks to keep silent is the example that we have. If paying folks off is corrupt for some, democrats, it seems you folks should be hounding CNN for their debasement and vile acts that you so often vilify others for.

 

No argument then

 

Well said

 

You can be 100% certain they’re not allowed to say.

 

As long as you don’t mind being incorrect, knock yourself out.