Jury awards Jesse Ventura $1.8 million from Chris Kyle estate

[donnay]

I don't think the money rightfully belongs to Jesse because Jesse doesn't actually own his own reputation. Reputation cannot be owned, because it is simply what others think of you.

Now, Jesse took money from the estate of a killer, and I don't object to that, but that doesn't mean it rightly belongs to him.

You have to build up a reputation--if someone smears it, you take them to court and sue them for defamation of character. This is what Jesse did. He took money out of his own pocket with hopes to prove to people, Kyle is a liar and he did not say the things Kyle accused him of. Now that money he won, and it is his to do as he pleases. Again, none of our business passed that point.

[AuH20]

http://www.nationalreview.com/articl...lgado/page/0/2

Consider what Kyle’s publisher wrote after his tragic passing: “He dedicated his life in recent years to supporting veterans and donated the proceeds of American Sniper to the families of his fallen friends” (italics mine). An article in The Blaze definitively proclaimed: “A perfect reflection of his character, Kyle gave all proceeds from his best-selling book American Sniper to the families of soldiers killed in combat” (italics mine). Or this line from a Human Events article: “For American Sniper, Kyle donated the profits from that book to charity.” Kyle himself perpetuated this idea, telling the same proceeds-went-to-charity tale to the Texas News Service and even adding that he regularly received tearful calls and letters of thanks.

And now for the kicker: It isn’t true. Out of the staggering $3 million that American Sniper collected in royalties for Kyle, only $52,000 actually went to the families of fallen servicemen. (Rather than 100 percent of the proceeds, as the public was led to believe, try 2 percent!) While Kyle’s widow claimed, in her testimony, that they never intended to profit from the book, and “wanted” to donate the money to other veterans, she said they were weren’t able to because of — get this! — “gift-tax laws that prevented them from donating more than $13,000 each to two families last year.”

When Ventura’s attorney asked why they did not simply create a nonprofit (standard practice) to be able to give away the money without gift-tax concerns, Kyle said she had not had the time to set up such a nonprofit.

[LibertyEsq]

Contracts technically are title transfers from a libertarian POV.

But that can't work for every contract, namely service contracts, in which case it makes much more sense from a libertarian perspective to award money damages in place of specific performance (forcing the other side to follow through with the labor).

Or look at it in terms of a tort theory - say Jesse could have made $5,000,000 dollars maximum for the rest of his life but for Kyle's words. After Kyle's words, Jesse can only make $3,200,000. He was injured to the extent of $1,800,000 (at least in the jury's mind).

It's like getting hit by a car - but for someone else's misconduct, or interference in your life - you could have done X, but now you can only do Y. There are damages, even though there is no property theory involved...there is no need to import the concept of "reputation" as some tangible item that one can own or not, and which was damaged.

[Christian Liberty]

You have to build up a reputation--if someone smears it, you take them to court and sue them for defamation of character. This is what Jesse did. He took money out of his own pocket with hopes to prove to people, Kyle is a liar and he did not say the things Kyle accused him of. Now that money he won, and it is his to do as he pleases. Again, none of our business passed that point.

I guess this is just always going to be a contentious issue among libertarians. I personally don't see libel and slander laws as legitimate, and I don't see such activities, distasteful though they are, as rights-violations.

I do think Kyle kind of "deserved it" since he's a killer, but that's a different matter.

But that can't work for every contract, namely service contracts, in which case it makes much more sense from a libertarian perspective to award money damages in place of specific performance (forcing the other side to follow through with the labor).

Or look at it in terms of a tort theory - say Jesse could have made $5,000,000 dollars maximum for the rest of his life but for Kyle's words. After Kyle's words, Jesse can only make $3,200,000. He was injured to the extent of $1,800,000 (at least in the jury's mind).

It's like getting hit by a car - but for someone else's misconduct, or interference in your life - you could have done X, but now you can only do Y. There are damages, even though there is no property theory involved...there is no need to import the concept of "reputation" as some tangible item that one can own or not, and which was damaged.

A basic point of libertarian theory is ownership of self. So, if you hit me with a car, you have damaged my property (specifically myself) and are responsible for that injury. By contrast, reputation isn't really owned, lying about somebody doesn't strictly violate their rights.

Now, again, obviously Kyle is a scumbag, but that's not what I'm arguing here.

[LibertyEsq]

A basic point of libertarian theory is ownership of self. So, if you hit me with a car, you have damaged my property (specifically myself) and are responsible for that injury. By contrast, reputation isn't really owned, lying about somebody doesn't strictly violate their rights.

Now, again, obviously Kyle is a scumbag, but that's not what I'm arguing here.

Yeah neither am I, I enjoy philosophical debate.

Even if you have ownership of your self under libertarian property theory, there is still room for tort theory based on interference with what you could have done with your life. Based on libertarian property theory, the Court will make the negligent driver give me money for medical costs in order to heal my leg, or what have you. But the Court will also give me money for not being able to do what I otherwise could do - which is what it seems like the jury is doing here, from reading how the lawyer argued the case.

There also may or may not have been Restitution theory at play here (Although I'm no expert in defamation), in which case Jesse gets the money that Kyle wrongfully gained because of his misconduct. It's basically saying "party X (who was enriched), because of his misconduct, has no greater claim than Y (who was harmed), and therefore we shift the fruits of X's misconduct to Y."

Now, Restitution probably isn't based in libertarian thought either, but it's an example of something not based in property theory, for what it's worth.

[AuH20]

http://rt.com/usa/176756-jesse-ventu...ict-interview/

“I may criticize my government, but I have never criticized the soldier or the sailor or the airmen,” he told RT. “Wars happen because politics fails. Politicians fails. Then you have war. The military people are victims of that failure. I’ve always supported our military. I’ve never once spoke ill. And why would I do it?”

“Chris Kyle obviously was a tremendous sniper — there’s no doubt about it. He should have left the sniping over there. He came back home and put me in the crosshairs. And I guess I’m just fortunate that I only got wounded,” said Ventura

[Lucille]

Oh yeah Chris Kyle was such a hero...In the interview on O'Reilly (I posted above) Kyle recites his lie of sucker-punching Jesse and then says, he took off running because the cops showed up. Where was that police report?

Grigg mentioned that yesterday, wondering how that behavior is considered honorable.

http://www.lewrockwell.com/lrc-blog/...erary-misfire/

...Whatever one thinks of the merits of Ventura’s case or the wisdom of pursuing it (or, for that matter, the legitimacy of libel laws), it’s impossible to see how Kyle’s behavior was honorable. Kyle’s defense against Ventura’s defamation suit was that he told the truth about an incident in which he claimed to have sucker-punched a man old enough to qualify for a senior discount and then “took off running” – conduct that would hardly leave him covered in glory. Given that Kyle traded on his association with the Navy SEALs, his behavior makes one wonder why the SEALs didn’t file their own defamation suit against him.

[Valli6]

So I found court documents from March 19, 2014 (judge was denying a motion for summary judgement)
There was only one witness who testified to actually hearing the statement and seeing the punch. The rest could only testify that they heard about it after. Ventura had several witnesses who'd accompanied him at the bar, testify that nothing happened. Also Ventura provided photos of himself taken at the graduation the next day, with no bruises on his face.

Kyle could identify only one witness who had heard Ventura say, “You deserved
to lose a few,” and saw him punch Ventura: Jeremiah Dinnell. Dinnell testified that he
saw Kyle and Ventura arguing on the patio, heard Ventura say that “with what [they]
were doing overseas [they] deserve to lose a few guys,” and then saw Kyle punch him in
the face, underneath the eye. (Dinnell Dep. 122–26.) Dinnell could not recall if or how
Ventura fell after the punch or whether there was any blood. (Id. at 126–28.) Dinnell did
not see where Kyle went afterward but he, Dinnell, took off toward Danny’s. (Id. at 127–
28.)

The following day at the BUD/S graduation ceremony, no witness observed any
indication that Ventura had been punched in the face, such as bruising, swelling, or
abrasions, including Wayne Robertson, who stood next to Ventura for photos and
interacted with him throughout the day. (Leonard Aff. ¶ 10; Robertson Aff. ¶ 5.) And
none of Ventura’s witnesses heard mention of a fight at McP’s. (Leonard Aff. ¶¶ 8-9;
Robertson Aff. ¶ 6.) Ventura has submitted photographs of himself taken at McP’s and at
the graduation ceremony the next day, in which no injuries are visible. As Ventura was
on blood-thinning medication at the time, he maintains that a punch in the face from a
“220-pound trained killer” would have resulted in noticeable bruising and/or bleeding.
(Pl.’s Mem. at 16; Gotchey Aff. ¶ 14.)

http://docs.justia.com/cases/federal...pdf?1395312985

[dannno]

So I found court documents from March 19, 2014 (judge was denying a motion for summary judgement)
There was only one witness who testified to actually hearing the statement and seeing the punch. The rest could only testify that they heard about it after. Ventura had several witnesses who'd accompanied him at the bar, testify that nothing happened. Also Ventura provided photos of himself taken at the graduation the next day, with no bruises on his face.


http://docs.justia.com/cases/federal...pdf?1395312985

lol, ya I saw people on Hotair talking about the dozen witnesses that saw what happened and testified... f'n liars, I guess they don't call it Hotair for nothing.

[Christian Liberty]

Yeah neither am I, I enjoy philosophical debate.

Even if you have ownership of your self under libertarian property theory, there is still room for tort theory based on interference with what you could have done with your life. Based on libertarian property theory, the Court will make the negligent driver give me money for medical costs in order to heal my leg, or what have you. But the Court will also give me money for not being able to do what I otherwise could do - which is what it seems like the jury is doing here, from reading how the lawyer argued the case.

There also may or may not have been Restitution theory at play here (Although I'm no expert in defamation), in which case Jesse gets the money that Kyle wrongfully gained because of his misconduct. It's basically saying "party X (who was enriched), because of his misconduct, has no greater claim than Y (who was harmed), and therefore we shift the fruits of X's misconduct to Y."

Now, Restitution probably isn't based in libertarian thought either, but it's an example of something not based in property theory, for what it's worth.

The way I understand restitution is, if I steal from you, I have to pay double (or triple, or whatever) to you as punishment for my crime, rather than pointlessly sitting in a cell and making you pay for it.

I don't think that's applicable to libel/slander. In a libel/slander case, you are misusing your free speech rights, but you are still just using words. You aren't using any aggression against your neighbor.

http://rt.com/usa/176756-jesse-ventu...ict-interview/

Yeah, Laurence Vance >>>>>>>> Jesse Ventura. Ventura has never been a philosophical libertarian either, he has a number of good points going for him compared to some other guys, but he's not anywhere near a sound philosopher.

[LibertyEsq]

The way I understand restitution is, if I steal from you, I have to pay double (or triple, or whatever) to you as punishment for my crime, rather than pointlessly sitting in a cell and making you pay for it.

I don't think that's applicable to libel/slander. In a libel/slander case, you are misusing your free speech rights, but you are still just using words. You aren't using any aggression against your neighbor.


Yeah, Laurence Vance >>>>>>>> Jesse Ventura. Ventura has never been a philosophical libertarian either, he has a number of good points going for him compared to some other guys, but he's not anywhere near a sound philosopher.

Yes that may be what would happen for willful conversion (effectively stealing) of personal property. By restitution I mean essentially what Olsen said about this case, when he was talking about how Kyle made 10-15 million in book sales (or whatever it was) "off of the lie," Jesse was entitled to some of that because Kyle was unjustly enriched. I.e. you have party A that made money wrongfully (by purposefully lying) to some detriment of party B, and the Court gives some or all of the "ill-gotten gains" from party A to party B. Not saying that's a libertarian concept at all - just an example of a theory that could have some merit outside of property theories.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Restitution

Basically, compensation (your typical damages for injuries) would compensate direct harm to someone's self, or paying back property you stole. Restitution would be a different animal entirely (now give me the profits that resulted from what you stole).

And again, I think Contract theory, at least in a large number of cases (i.e. service contracts), must be considered separately from Property theory - but is still necessary for the free market to work. For example if I promise you "$500 for you to fully paint my house," I don't have an ownership right in your ability to paint my house, but if you refuse to do it, I can sue you for the difference between $500 and what I had to pay someone else. If we agree to have my house done by Friday and you don't do it until Saturday, and as a result the prospective buyers I had look at my house on Friday night don't buy my house, I may have additional damages from you based on the consequences of you failing to perform. These are all Contract theories that are necessary for a free market to function, even though I never have a property interest in your labor.

[PaulConventionWV]

Who knows what happened? 11 witnesses corroborated that some confrontation ensued. Obviously, the details were left to interpretation. I think both fan bases are acting like idiots in all this. The pro-Kyle and pro-Ventura stuff is just so toxic. It's amazing how over-the-top people will go to trash either Kyle or Ventura. Last I checked, Chris Kyle wasn't Josef Mengele and Jessie Ventura isn't some drooling kook.

Who's Josef Mengele and why is Kyle not as bad as him?

[PaulConventionWV]

Iraqi soldiers who were defending their country would have been non-aggressive. Kyle was the aggressor just by being there.

The real key to it, and why I think he's a scumbag, is that he was proud of it. Had he come home and expressed regret at the loss of life, I'd feel differently about the man, but as it is he was a proud killer. Ron was right, live by the sword, die by the sword.



Exactly. See above.

With that being said, I don't think Jesse should keep the money. He should find the victims and give it to them, as PaulConventionWV suggested.

I shy away from saying he should do that, but I think it would be honorable for him to do that.

[Philhelm]

I guess this is just always going to be a contentious issue among libertarians. I personally don't see libel and slander laws as legitimate, and I don't see such activities, distasteful though they are, as rights-violations.

Let's say you that earn a living by running a preschool. I, for whatever reason, run around telling people that you like to diddle little boys and, based upon that false information, the parents remove their children for your preschool. Because of this, you end up losing your business and therefore your personal income. Damages would be caused based upon a lie.

[donnay]

I guess this is just always going to be a contentious issue among libertarians. I personally don't see libel and slander laws as legitimate, and I don't see such activities, distasteful though they are, as rights-violations.

Let's just say you got fired from Ben and Jerry's Ice Cream and you went around on radio and TV telling everyone that Ben and Jerry's Ice cream has fetal grindings in it. Ben and Jerry's start losing a lot of money because of this disgruntled former employee. Are you saying they do not have a right to sue him for slander and libel for hurting their business?

[dannno]

Let's say you that earn a living by running a preschool. I, for whatever reason, run around telling people that you like to diddle little boys and, based upon that false information, the parents remove their children for your preschool. Because of this, you end up losing your business and therefore your personal income. Damages would be caused based upon a lie.

I think beyond that you have to prove that you knew you were lying about FF, which Jesse Ventura was able to prove about Chris Kyle in court. Maybe you have a pre-school across town that you just invested in and you want it to get more business. Maybe a witness came forward to testify that you told them it was all a lie and you were just trying to get parents to pull their kids out of the preschool.

The lack of facial bruising from photos taken the next day and the lack of witness testimony on Chris Kyle's side and the fact that he used the entire episode as a way to sell and showcase his book in the media showed strong evidence that he knew he was lying and was doing so for personal gain.

[Cutlerzzz]

Ben and Jerry's nor any preschoolers have a right to have customers.

[specsaregood]

http://www.nationalreview.com/articl...lgado/page/0/2

Consider what Kyle’s publisher wrote after his tragic passing: “He dedicated his life in recent years to supporting veterans and donated the proceeds of American Sniper to the families of his fallen friends” (italics mine). An article in The Blaze definitively proclaimed: “A perfect reflection of his character, Kyle gave all proceeds from his best-selling book American Sniper to the families of soldiers killed in combat” (italics mine). Or this line from a Human Events article: “For American Sniper, Kyle donated the profits from that book to charity.” Kyle himself perpetuated this idea, telling the same proceeds-went-to-charity tale to the Texas News Service and even adding that he regularly received tearful calls and letters of thanks.

And now for the kicker: It isn’t true. Out of the staggering $3 million that American Sniper collected in royalties for Kyle, only $52,000 actually went to the families of fallen servicemen. (Rather than 100 percent of the proceeds, as the public was led to believe, try 2 percent!) While Kyle’s widow claimed, in her testimony, that they never intended to profit from the book, and “wanted” to donate the money to other veterans, she said they were weren’t able to because of — get this! — “gift-tax laws that prevented them from donating more than $13,000 each to two families last year.”

When Ventura’s attorney asked why they did not simply create a nonprofit (standard practice) to be able to give away the money without gift-tax concerns, Kyle said she had not had the time to set up such a nonprofit.

Consider me completely unsurprised that this lying serial killer lied about donating the profits of the book to others.

[NorthCarolinaLiberty]

There was only one witness who testified to actually hearing the statement and seeing the punch. The rest could only testify that they heard about it after.

This is what I figured. What were Kyle's defenders saying? 11 witnesses? LOL.

This is why news stories are mostly useless and you have to be there, or at least look at court documents.

[Christian Liberty]

Let's just say you got fired from Ben and Jerry's Ice Cream and you went around on radio and TV telling everyone that Ben and Jerry's Ice cream has fetal grindings in it. Ben and Jerry's start losing a lot of money because of this disgruntled former employee. Are you saying they do not have a right to sue him for slander and libel for hurting their business?

Yes, that is what I am saying.

[Zippyjuan]

Let's just say you got fired from Ben and Jerry's Ice Cream and you went around on radio and TV telling everyone that Ben and Jerry's Ice cream has fetal grindings in it. Ben and Jerry's start losing a lot of money because of this disgruntled former employee. Are you saying they do not have a right to sue him for slander and libel for hurting their business?

How much was Jessie Ventura's "business" hurt because he was allegedly hit in a bar? According to reports, his net worth is about $12 million. http://www.richestcelebrities.net/je...ura-net-worth/ Would he be unable to make a living based on what the book said?

[HOLLYWOOD]

I wish somehow, Jesse could of taken-down or humiliated Kyle's propagandist/douche-bag from FOX NEWS, Bill O'reilly.

PS: Bill O’Reilly Wants to Know Why Rand Paul Won’t Come on His Show

BillO and his lapdog dummy Bernie Goldberg, attacked Rand last night

[qh4dotcom]

How much was Jessie Ventura's "business" hurt because he was allegedly hit in a bar? According to reports, his net worth is about $12 million. http://www.richestcelebrities.net/je...ura-net-worth/ Would he be unable to make a living based on what the book said?

Who cares how much he is worth......the Kyles need to be held accountable for the lies they are profiting from.

[56ktarget]

Chris Kyle was a homicidal maniac who had a big mouth and got what was coming for him... Why people have any sympathy for him is beyond me.

[Christian Liberty]

Chris Kyle was a homicidal maniac who had a big mouth and got what was coming for him... Why people have any sympathy for him is beyond me.

Wow... for once I agree with you on something.