I might have misread, but I thought Kyle had several witnesses saying Ventura was in fact there, and was making those comments. What's the chances it was a Ventura impersonater?

I might have misread, but I thought Kyle had several witnesses saying Ventura was in fact there, and was making those comments. What's the chances it was a Ventura impersonator?

 

I'll have to find where I read it, but apparently none of their testimonies jived with each other. Even Kyle's version of the story was different from testimony to testimony.

Sounds like a cool brag story guys tell at the bar that went way too far.

Why did Kyle's attorney agree to a non-unanimous decision, with the jury close to hung? Million dollar mistake.

 

Kyle does have a movie coming out and should re-coop the money easily.

Ventura would be well served to donate the $ to Wounded Warriors or another military charity.

Ventura would be well served to donate the $ to Wounded Warriors or another military charity.

 

Agreed. For sure.

Is that really defamation? Is it only defamation because it was printed in a book? If he puts it on Twitter is it defamation?

 

I think anyone associated with wrestling is a fake and phony. Sue me.

Is that really defamation? Is it only defamation because it was printed in a book? If he puts it on Twitter is it defamation?

 

I think anyone associated with wrestling is a fake and phony. Sue me.

 

I think one soldier alleging that another soldier from the same 'side' of things said that they "deserved to lose some" soldiers in a war is a pretty crappy and potentially damaging - particularly when they both come from such a specially and highly trained group of soldiers, and even moreso when the person being defamed has made a political career largely on the basis that he learned to have a take no crap, get it done whatever it takes attitude from being a part of that highly trained group of soldiers.

 

The bigger deal, in my eyes, is clearly the fact that Kyle claimed to have witnessed Ventura saying he thought some SEALs "deserved" to die in Iraq - not the fact that he punched him out.

I might have misread, but I thought Kyle had several witnesses saying Ventura was in fact there, and was making those comments. What's the chances it was a Ventura impersonater?

 

I thought Ventura himself said he was there.

Before I offer up an opinion I would like to hear the basic facts on Ventura's side.

 

Not knowing anything about the case, the verdict would make a reasonable person think Kyle was lying and that he in fact defamed Ventura.

 

Anyone?

 

If he wanted to defame him he would have named him in his book. From what I have read, the only time he acknowledged that it was Ventura was with a nod of his head during an interview on a late night show. Ventura was the one telling anyone that would listen that it was him and that it didn't happen or didn't happen like that. He seemed to be intent on suing as soon as the book came out.

 

Ventura has admitted that he will have to turn his back on his fellow UDT/SEALS as he will no longer be welcome at their gatherings. The room was full of SEALS and Retired UDT guys when it supposedly happened that had come together after a funeral, if Ventura was 100% correct why wouldn't his brother SEALS/UDT guys accept him back?

Very very strange story. But did anyone catch what Anderson Cooper said about Ventura in the article? I'm no Cooper fan, but it was funny.

I just see no reason Chris Kyle would lie. I want to see the evidence. Ventura is a nut job.

Check out Ventura's Facebook page. If he thinks Chris Kyle damaged his reputation he has to be going nuts seeing what his decision to pursue it after Kyle died has done.

I can't believe he is that much of an idiot posting an article on his "winnings" on his Facebook page like he was proud of it!

Why did Kyle's attorney agree to a non-unanimous decision, with the jury close to hung? Million dollar mistake.

 

Kyle does have a movie coming out and should re-coop the money easily.

States have their own laws regarding juries in civil litigation, but AFAIK, the size and vote required to win a lawsuit is not up to the lawyers.

 

I believe that in Kentucky, the two sides may agree to have a judge-only trial or if a judge determines that there are no contested facts in a case, he or she may decide to try the civil case without a jury. Whenever there are facts in dispute and the two sides are unwilling to waive their rights to a jury trial, then the judge will hand the case to a jury.

 

Disclaimer: I am not a lawyer, so maybe one of the Kentucky lawyers will correct me if I am mistaken.