Board 8 > Johnny Depp vs. Amber Heard Aftermath

(+) Yeah! (+)

PrivateBiscuit1 posted...

Legal Eagle is the laughingstock of every single other Law YouTuber. He's frequently wrong and hilariously biased.

lol how convenient, one of the biggest YouTube lawyers is wrong and a laughingstock (Source: dude, trust me)

I Googled him after you posted this and didnt find anyone saying he was a bad lawyer (although I did find people saying they disagree with him sometimesand they made a point to say that doesnt make him bad)

Also hilariously biased towards what? Watch the video and tell me where the bias is.

And here comes Ulti to back me up, unintentionally, lol.

What exactly did the jury do wrong?

They ruled that the Lawyer statement saying Amber perpetuated a hoax was defamatory. If it was defamatory then it had to be false and intended to harm her, but if it was false then the jury is saying she didnt perpetuate a hoax that day? Extremely sketchy ruling.

ChaosTonyV4 posted...

lol how convenient, one of the biggest YouTube lawyers is wrong and a laughingstock (Source: dude, trust me)

I Googled him after you posted this and didnt find anyone saying he was a bad lawyer (although I did find people saying they disagree with him sometimesand they made a point to say that doesnt make him bad)

Also hilariously biased towards what? Watch the video and tell me where the bias is.

And here comes Ulti to back me up, unintentionally, lol.

I promise you that I have watched more LawTubers than you. And I could name no less than half a dozen who have said disparaging things about him and his videos.

I may watch his video later, but I'm sure it will get a tremendous amount of facts wrong to get to his conclusion that his audience wants and omit plenty of details to justify it. I recommend getting your legal analysis on YouTube from literally anyone else.

ChaosTonyV4 posted...

They ruled that the Lawyer statement saying Amber perpetuated a hoax was defamatory. If it was defamatory then it had to be false and intended to harm her, but if it was false then the jury is saying she didnt perpetuate a hoax that day? Extremely sketchy ruling.

Right. But she could have lied about the events of many other days.

PrivateBiscuit1 posted...

I promise you that I have watched more LawTubers than you. And I could name no less than half a dozen who have said disparaging things about him and his videos.

I may watch his video later, but I'm sure it will get a tremendous amount of facts wrong to get to his conclusion that his audience wants and omit plenty of details to justify it. I recommend getting your legal analysis on YouTube from literally anyone else.

The amount of bias you have in like every post is hilarious. What conclusion does his audience want? You cant help yourself but take anything that you assume is against you as the worst possible interpretation or possibility, literally every time, lmao.

ChaosTonyV4 posted...

The amount of bias you have in like every post is hilarious. What conclusion does his audience want? You cant help yourself but take anything that you assume is against you as the worst possible interpretation or possibility, literally every time, lmao.

"Guys Legal Eagle has this to say!"

"Legal Eagle is not credible and most LawTubers agree."

"Oh wow you surely made that up!"

Alright keep talking to me about bias bud. I assume the worst of Legal Eagle because he has no credibility with other legal experts on YouTube and he has repeatedly gotten the law wrong or misinterpreted or omitted facts numerous times before.

He has a very progressive audience and actively caters everything he talks about to appeal to them, rather than speak to the reality of the law.

The fact that the video I just posted is not that, and youre just assuming, is very funny.

Its not bias to ask you to back up your words, sorry dude.

I saw this topic had like 100 more posts than yesterday and got curious what happened

Like 80-90 of these posts are the same two guys.

Like, obsession may a matter of looking in the mirror at this point...

Yeah I'm not sure what the goal of the argument is at this point.

CassandraCain posted...

Yeah I'm not sure what the goal of the argument is at this point.

Get the topic to 500, probably.

But seriously, this argument has become more pointless than Seinfeld, the famed "Show About Nothing."

UltimaterializerX posted...

Tony, why do you give a shit enough to argue in two straight 500 topics about it? When youre on your death bed, will you wish you had spent more time on the internet trying to convince people who dont care?

Im at work, posting on B8 is easy because I can put it down and pick it up between doing things, and I enjoy discussions/arguments lol.

ChaosTonyV4 posted...

Im at work, posting on B8 is easy because I can put it down and pick it up between doing things, and I enjoy discussions/arguments lol.

Aight.

I'm done here.

kevwaffles posted...

Also real big Trump energy when your defense is "plenty of ___ are saying it" without a damn thing to back that up.

It's funny that I was getting this vibe too before you posted that.

It's like "what if Trump was a radical off leftist rather than a radical off rightist"

Like what's MAGA for people on the left.

Lopen posted...

It's funny that I was getting this vibe too before you posted that.

It's like "what if Trump was a radical off leftist rather than a radical off rightist"

Like what's MAGA for people on the left.

Make America Great Again But Also Less Racist And How About Some Healthcare Cops Are Also Kinda A Problem And Education Sucks Let's Do Something About That

MAGABALRAHASHCAAKAPAESLDSAT

We're workshopping it.

you forgot about guns you need to add a few more letters

PrivateBiscuit1 posted...

you forgot about guns you need to add a few more letters

Well it's been over two days since the last mass shooting, you see, so I'm sure you'll forgive me.

Eh I liked Legal Eagle's videos most of the time, but more as a look into law history. I admit I wouldnt know a proper lawyer if I saw one.
Is he biased? Likely. But usually when he showed it I at least tended to agree with him.

Legal Eagle, specifically on his YouTube venture is geared towards entertainment and will at time dumb things down to cater to his audience. Personally I wouldnt use any lawyer ran YouTube channel for the sole purpose of learning or obtaining any legal advice regardless of said persons credentials( and as far as I can tell he is well accredited).

With that being said I would like links/sources to the claims of him not being correct or flat out wrong.

Okay but can we talk for a minute about how handsome Legal Eagle is?

mnkboy907 posted...

Okay but can we talk for a minute about how handsome Legal Eagle is?

Meh. He's not ugly at least.

Sorozone posted...

Legal Eagle, specifically on his YouTube venture is geared towards entertainment and will at time dumb things down to cater to his audience. Personally I wouldnt use any lawyer ran YouTube channel for the sole purpose of learning or obtaining any legal advice regardless of said persons credentials( and as far as I can tell he is well accredited).

With that being said I would like links/sources to the claims of him not being correct or flat out wrong.

Plenty of LawTubers have done videos talking about him getting certain things wrong. Viva Frei, Hoeg Law, Rekeita Law, UncivilLaw, and Nate the Lawyer are some off the top of my head.

I will concede that a lot of his videos where he is just generally explaining things are usually fine, but it's where he gets into legal analysis that he really gets sloppy.

Im asking you to provide those links.

I googled Legal Eagle bias and watched the first video that popped up, and its the Viva Frei guy, and I watched it.

https://youtu.be/UpY2N4ufRL0

I have to say, I was not impressed at the beginning, when he spends a significant amount of time criticizing Legal Eagle for emphasizing the five hour gap, while having just said he did the exact same thing before commenters on his post told him the 5 hours were after midnight.

Then he spends time strawmanning the idea that as discussed. When, ironically, Legal Eagle is just doing that thing Biscuit does (that annoys me, to be fair) where he says something likely but not guaranteed as fact.

Anyway yeah, I definitely see the bias in that Legal Eagle video, hes speaking conversationally to give an entertaining recap rather than how you would in court, basically, but its exactly the same sort of bias you do Biscuit so idk why you hate the man lol.

Yeah, I'm not sure I get the hate against Legal Eagle. He's "biased," but only in the way any commentator is when they're doing it for entertainment value moreso than legal critique. This is an area I've gotta agree with Tony on.

I don't know why you're presenting this like it's some kind of gotcha and not completely easy to find.

https://youtu.be/qeINFKi93OM

https://youtu.be/KOSRk-76UUs

https://youtu.be/1KgfqPj_fAo

https://youtu.be/zPtrB3nPhP8

https://youtu.be/K6_4G59YrRA

https://youtu.be/qTw5DXc-Ba0

https://youtu.be/JwA-dwwTNHA

https://youtu.be/vCGqEi_hL0Y

So I watched Legal Eagle's video and didn't notice anything weird or biased. It seemed to just be straight facts of the verdict.

"Build back better" would have worked if they didn't give concessions literally every time it'd look like they'd get pushback. This idea that "We'll be saved by the responsible Republicans crossing over" is hilariously sad.

It basically turned into

"Build back better."
"no."
"...Build back adequate?"
"no."
"...Build back arguably decent?"
"maybe."

Democrats are bitches.

PrivateBiscuit1 posted...

I don't know why you're presenting this like it's some kind of gotcha and not completely easy to find.

Not sure if this was directed to me, but not a gotcha. I prefer people providing the basis of their information for a claim they are making so there isn't any room for misinterpretation regardless if it's easy to look up. I can't read your mind.

Thanks for the links.

Just going to say - a law of things in law are not cut and dry, as much as one or both sides of the argument would like you to believe that they are. So people can disagree, and it doesn't mean anyone is necessarily wrong.

StealThisSheen posted...

Yeah, I'm not sure I get the hate against Legal Eagle. He's "biased," but only in the way any commentator is when they're doing it for entertainment value moreso than legal critique. This is an area I've gotta agree with Tony on.

yeah, i'm no lawtuber connoisseur but the few i've watched from time to time seemed to be very biased, so this isn't something that's unique to legal eagle. and biscuit himself is obviously extremely biased as well, both in this case and the rittenhouse case.

if legal eagle gets his facts wrong, he sucks, sure. but bias isn't necessarily a bad thing.

I explained my issue with his bias is that he omits facts or misinterprets the law to fit said bias, not just that he's bias.

Oh, if anyone wanted to know how the Heard NBC interview went, it looks like they released those clips to kind of entice anyone who was against Heard to watch, because they edited out all of the really bad answers she gave in the clips and then continued to edit it like a puff piece that painted her as the victim and that she had an unfair trial.

So your typical MSM dishonesty.

ChaosTonyV4 posted...

Im at work, posting on B8 is easy because I can put it down and pick it up between doing things, and I enjoy discussions/arguments lol.

You are certainly not good at either.

Lopen posted...

It's funny that I was getting this vibe too before you posted that.

It's like "what if Trump was a radical off leftist rather than a radical off rightist"

Like what's MAGA for people on the left.

Drinking and waiting for the end times these days.

Or maybe some crazy shit in places not America I suppose.

I agree with most of Tony's broad political stances but also that he isn't great at caring about random things. Probably a bit beaten down by all the children dying and health issues and poverty or something in fairness.

I reject the notion that being against tabloid entertainment of awful things means I dont care about said awful things.

Before this trial and after it I have and will spend more time talking/posting about and decrying the awful state of justice for victims of crime than most people here, I do it every day and not just when its fun to watch or whatever.

Also Chris is 100% correct that Im black pilled, and I dont need to apologize for being pessimistic about the future lol.

Oh, the bombshell claim that Amber made during the NBC interview about evidence she couldn't bring were her therapists notes that were supposedly written in 2019, well after her and Johnny were broken up. There's multiple issues with these:

• They were hearsay. They wanted to present them without the therapist there.
• The therapist was on their witness list but they didn't bring her on because she'd have to explain why when Amber told her these back in 2016 she didn't report it to protect her; and even more importantly...
• These notes look like they were written by Amber, not the therapist. People have been comparing Amber's handwriting elsewhere to these notes and it's uh suspect. But the major thing that points in that direction is that therapists took a look at these and said that's not how they take notes. They were written like a book rather than actual shorthand that a therapist would do.

I expect after this interview that they're going to file an injunction to get Amber to stop, since it's clear she will not quit defaming him at all and that the media is willing to work with her to make her lies as clean as they possibly can with editing.

It's Trump all over again.