Page 60 of 61

Re: Shooting of the Week

PostPosted: Sun Sep 22, 2019 1:10 pm
by windwalker
Ian C. Kuzushi wrote:. More ignorance on display as usual. 相変わらず


totally agree.

His point.

It isn't addressed by most politicians "both parties" doesn't make the mainstream news.
Not posted here doesn't seem fit the narrative that some focus on.

Re: Shooting of the Week

PostPosted: Sun Sep 22, 2019 3:01 pm
by Ian C. Kuzushi
windwalker wrote:
Ian C. Kuzushi wrote:. More ignorance on display as usual. 相変わらず


totally agree.

His point.

It isn't addressed by most politicians "both parties" doesn't make the mainstream news.
Not posted here doesn't seem fit the narrative that some focus on.


I would be truly impressed if you would or could address my points about his inconsistent line of thought and misstatement. I know honest engagements don't usually end up in your favor, but we might both learn something from each other.

I am also unclear by what you mean in the bolded sentence above. Do you mean you agree that both parties are ignoring the issue (it would be more accurate to say that it is less sensationalized which I think is why it also gets less coverage). Anyway, if you are saying that, it's a point of agreement between us.

By the way, I'm not a Democrat, and as should be obvious from previous conversations we have had, I am not "anti" gun or someone unfamiliar with them. I just find many of your posts to be ill-informed and when we actually trace things out, I think that bears out. But, if we have commonalities, maybe there is something to learn?

Re: Shooting of the Week

PostPosted: Sun Sep 22, 2019 4:27 pm
by windwalker
Ian C. Kuzushi wrote:. Anyway, if you are saying that, it's a point of agreement between us.

By the way, I'm not a Democrat, and as should be obvious from previous conversations we have had, I am not "anti" gun or someone unfamiliar with them. I just find many of your posts to be ill-informed and when we actually trace things out, I think that bears out. But, if we have commonalities, maybe there is something to learn?


always something to learn. :)

As much as possible if one tries address points put out as fact when they seem contrary to their own understanding
or seek understanding of another's outlook with out rancor, all can learn.

I am also unclear by what you mean in the bolded sentence above. Do you mean you agree that both parties are ignoring the issue (it would be more accurate to say that it is less sensationalized which I think is why it also gets less coverage). Anyway, if you are saying that, it's a point of agreement between us.


Yep both parties :-\


As to the clip,,,Don't even track the things you've mentioned, a non issue.
If I had an issue I would address the person who made the clip directly...not someone sharing it.

I do find him to be kind of funny and entertaining in his own way, while expressing view points
on various subjects, some of which I agree with.

Not a fan of guns, although I am quite familiar with their usage and historical
significance in the US.

A symptom of a problem not the problem itself as
the clip outlined, maybe not so clear....

Re: Shooting of the Week

PostPosted: Sat Oct 19, 2019 6:00 pm
by grzegorz
Watch "Coach disarms school gunman with hug" on YouTube

https://youtu.be/yxOC2i7gnRM

Re: Shooting of the Week

PostPosted: Sat Oct 19, 2019 6:03 pm
by Michael
You stalked me in the thread I made about the coach, deleted your bizarro post, then copied my link here? Yeah, I think it's OCD.

Re: Shooting of the Week

PostPosted: Sat Oct 19, 2019 6:04 pm
by grzegorz
Thanks Sandy Hook.

Just trying to get you to face your own words.

Too bad this didn't happen at Sandy Hook, isn't it?

Re: Shooting of the Week

PostPosted: Sat Oct 19, 2019 6:06 pm
by Michael
What words? You're just making things up and repeating them. Why can't you even mix in a joke now and then?

Re: Shooting of the Week

PostPosted: Sat Oct 19, 2019 6:09 pm
by grzegorz
I got jokes.

Image[/quote]

Re: Shooting of the Week

PostPosted: Sat Oct 19, 2019 6:23 pm
by grzegorz
I figured you would have a comment on the Sandy Hook case but I guess not.

Re: Shooting of the Week

PostPosted: Sat Oct 19, 2019 6:45 pm
by Michael
There is nothing to comment on. You've gotten some things mixed up and are fixating on them. Here's a joke to help you to take your mind off things.

Image

Re: Shooting of the Week

PostPosted: Sat Oct 19, 2019 6:46 pm
by Michael
And...

Image

Re: Shooting of the Week

PostPosted: Sat Oct 19, 2019 6:52 pm
by grzegorz
No mix up but I understand your reason for no comment.

Re: Shooting of the Week

PostPosted: Sat Oct 19, 2019 6:57 pm
by Michael
If there's no mix up, then what words are you referring to? Why are you repeating nonsense about Sandy Hook like a crazy person?

Re: Shooting of the Week

PostPosted: Sat Oct 19, 2019 6:59 pm
by grzegorz
I see you're having trouble answering the question.

Because you posted info suggesting it was a false flag.

Image

Re: Shooting of the Week

PostPosted: Sat Oct 19, 2019 7:02 pm
by grzegorz
No comment? No problem.

grzegorz wrote:Jury awards $450,000 to father of Sandy Hook victim in defamation case

Noah Pozner was 6 when he was killed in the 2012 shooting at Sandy Hook Elementary School in Newtown, Conn. This week, a Wisconsin jury awarded $450,000 in damages to his father, who sued people who claimed the attack never happened. (Uncredited/AP)

By Susan Svrluga 

October 16, 2019 at 8:52 PM EDT

A jury this week awarded $450,000 to a father who has battled conspiracy theorists’ claims that the 2012 shooting death of his son at a Connecticut school was a hoax.

In the years since 6-year-old Noah Pozner was killed, Lenny Pozner has tried to stop people from spreading lies about the mass shooting at Sandy Hook Elementary School and from harassing him and other grieving families for proof that the event happened. In June, Pozner won a defamation case against editors of a book that claimed no one died at the Newtown, Conn., school. A summary judgment found that James H. Fetzer and Mike Palecek defamed Pozner with statements that his son’s death certificate was a fake.

On Tuesday, a Wisconsin jury determined the amount that Fetzer must pay Pozner for making defamatory statements, with the foreperson writing in “$450,000” on the form.

“This is a first,” said Jake Zimmerman, Pozner’s attorney. “This is the first time someone has stood up to these people and gone all the way."

First, they lost their children. Then the conspiracy theories started. Now, the parents of Newtown are fighting back.

Zimmerman said the case sent an important message that families can stand up for the truth, and it sends a message to those who are spreading the theories.

“Anyone else who’s in the business of harassing families of victims of mass-casualty events — which unfortunately has become a cottage industry, it seems — has to look at this and say there is a cost to making these statements,” Zimmerman said.

Fetzer and others have cast the dispute as an attack on the First Amendment.

Fetzer, a professor emeritus at the University of Minnesota at Duluth, defended the book, which was written by 13 people, and its conclusions.

“This result represents a significant defeat for collaborative research by citizen journalists in an ongoing effort to offset the pervasive influence of ‘fake news’ about a plethora of events, including JFK, 9/11, the Boston bombing and (even) the moon landing,” he wrote in an email Wednesday. “When books are banned, the people are deprived of alternative perspectives in the search for truth, as this case so vividly exemplifies.

“Most Americans, alas, are not in the position to conduct research and sort out truth from fiction, which leaves them vulnerable to narratives that are aggressively promoted by the mainstream media,” Fetzer wrote.

Conspiracy theories began spreading online almost immediately after 26 people were shot and killed at Sandy Hook in 2012, with some speculating the massacre was a staged event to generate urgency for gun-control laws. Even before the funerals were over, grieving families became targets, with people accusing them of being actors paid to play a role. Over time, many assumed they would eventually be left alone, but theories flourished in anonymous online forums and on social media, and Pozner received death threats.

He founded the nonprofit HONR Network to combat harassment, and he and other families sued people who have questioned the attack — including Alex Jones, who runs the conspiracy-theory-driven Infowars website.

Pozner and his attorney went to great lengths at the defamation trial to prove that Noah Pozner was a real little boy who had lived and died: They gave the judge the death certificate, with raised seal, to counter the allegation in the book that it had been faked; turned over scores of pages of pediatric medical records; and submitted DNA samples from Noah and Lenny Pozner.

In September, Pozner reached a settlement with Palecek, according to court documents. Zimmerman said Palecek had agreed to a statement: “The Court has ruled that the death certificate of Noah Pozner is not a fabrication as stated in the book ‘Nobody Died at Sandy Hook.’ I accept the Court’s ruling without appeal and I apologize for any resulting distress that I may have caused.”

In an earlier settlement, the publisher of the book, David R. Gahary, agreed to stop selling it.

Zimmerman said he and Pozner did not suggest a damages amount to the jury for the reputational and emotional harm Pozner suffered. A forensic psychiatrist testified that Pozner had suffered post-traumatic stress disorder after his son’s death, and that the defamatory statements “essentially caused a secondary injury that means his PTSD is chronic and likely will not go away,” Zimmerman said. The jury’s large monetary award “reflects the agony of being harassed in this way,” he said.

Pozner said: “The damages awarded me for Mr. Fetzer’s prolific defamation and harassment are significant, not so much for the dollar amount, which I will likely never see due to Mr. Fetzer’s economic reality, but for the precedent that it sets. This sends a message to hoaxers and conspiracy theorists and others, who seek to use Internet to revictimize and terrorize vulnerable people, that their actions have consequences. When you defame people online, that has consequences.”

The verdict is also important for other victims of online harassment and hoaxes, Pozner said in a written statement, including “victims of other mass casualty incidents, school and church shootings, and high profile murders. Every victory empowers victims of online hate and harassment to stand up and take action, this win gives them . . . tools to do so.”

1132 Comments

Susan Svrluga

Susan Svrluga is a reporter covering higher education for The Washington Post's Grade Point blog. Before that, she covered education and local news at The Post. Follow

washingtonpost.com© 1996-2019 The Washington PostHelp and ContactTerms of ServicePrivacy PolicyPrint Products Terms of SaleDigital Products Terms of SaleSubmissions and Discussion PolicyRSS Terms of ServiceAd Choices