A winner at the great American sport

[Gob]

Of suing people...

A Kentucky high school student says he has settled a $250 million lawsuit with the Washington Post on his 18th birthday after he sued them claiming they made him out to be a racist following his stand-off with a Native American protester.




Nicholas Sandmann, a student at Covington Catholic High School, tweeted that the news outlet had settled the defamation lawsuit on Friday, which also happens to be his birthday.

Sandmann filed lawsuits against the Post, CNN and NBC after claiming the outlets vilified him following his stand-off with Nathan Phillips, an American Indian activist, at the Lincoln Memorial in Washington in January 2019.

He went on to thank his attorneys and those who supported him in filing the lawsuit.

'Thanks to @ToddMcMurtry & @LLinWood for their advocacy. Thanks to my family & millions of you who have stood your ground by supporting me. I still have more to do,' he said.

Sandmann did not reveal what the settlement was.

He settled a lawsuit with CNN in January for an undisclosed amount.

Sandmann and his family were seeking combined damages of more than $525 million against the outlets.

The teen claimed the outlets had falsely conveyed to viewers and readers that he was 'the face of an unruly mob' facing off against Phillips during protests at the memorial while he was in Washington DC on a field trip.

Sandmann, who was wearing a MAGA hat, and his classmates were participating in the annual anti-abortion March for Life in January at the time, which coincided with an Indigenous Peoples March.

An image of Sandmann staring down Phillips while the Native American was drumming and singing quickly went viral.



Both Sandmann and Phillips had said they were trying to defuse tensions rising among three groups marching on the same day.

An organization of black 'Hebrew Israelites' demonstrating nearby added to the confusion.

While Sandmann was initially characterized as a smug racist who initiated a physical confrontation, wideo footage later debunked that interpretation.

Some outlets had reported that Sandmann and his classmates had 'surrounded' and 'taunted' the 64-year-old Phillips. They also claimed that a 'smirking' Sandmann had stood in Phillip's path, blocking him from moving.

[MajGenl.Meade]

Good for him. The media were ahead of the shark on this one and rushed to judgement. A wrong and actionable judgement

[Gob]

$250,000,000,000 should set him up nicely.

[MajGenl.Meade]

$250,000,000,000 should set him up nicely.

Man, you've contracted the Trump-Zuma virus! $250,000,000

[Gob]

Damn!!

[Darren]

Good for him. The media were ahead of the shark on this one and rushed to judgement. A wrong and actionable judgement

Without the lawsuit the media's incompetence, at best, and possibly other motives, at worse, would not have been disclosed.

Is the American media trustworthy?

Edited for relevancy.

"... August 9th of 2014 in Ferguson, Missouri. That was when an unarmed black man, Michael Brown, was shot and killed by a white police officer, named Darren Wilson. Just say the word “Ferguson” and Michael Brown’s name, are immediately brought to mind.

It was an act of self-defense by Officer Wilson, who was violently attacked by Michael Brown when the larger and stronger Mr. Brown tried to wrest control of Officer Wilson's service weapon from him. Most people don’t, or won’t, accept the fact that the Brown killing was not a murder, because that’s been the overriding narrative since day one. A series of subsequent investigations by a succession of law enforcement agencies, local, state, and, finally, Federal, including a Civil Rights investigation by the Justice Department, headed at the time by Eric Holder, no friend of the police, but who nevertheless found no civil right’s violations by Officer Wilson.

As narration of the events of that hot August night in Missouri might be useful for those not yet living out from under their rock at the time of the incident. So, to that end, let me begin…

Officer Wilson, driving a police SUV, had just received a call on his police radio that a local convenience store had been robbed. En route to the scene, he observed two men walking in the middle of a nearby street who met the description of the store thieves. Wilson drove up to them.

When he asked the two men to move to the sidewalk to get them out of the street so he could talk to them, one of the men, Michael Brown, refused. Officer Wilson then attempted to get out of his car. But Brown blocked the door and without provocation punched the officer through the open window of his car. Then Brown, still through the police car’s open window, reached in and tried to grab Wilson’s gun, and a violent struggle ensued. Wilson was able to retain control of his weapon and managed to it one time, wounding his assailant in the hand.

After being shot in the hand, Brown ran away from the police car. Wilson got out of the police vehicle and pursued Brown on foot, firing no shots. Mid pursuit, the larger Mr. Brown suddenly turned and charged at Officer Wilson. Here’s how one disinterested witness, whose testimony closely fit the forensic evidence, described the incident at that point: “[Mr. Brown turned and] ran towards the officer, full charge. The officer fired several shots at Mr. Brown, but Brown continuously ran forward in the charging motion, and when he stopped, that's when the officer ceased fire... When he charged once more, the officer returned fire with, I would say… three to four shots. And that's when Mike Brown finally collapsed."

The Brown family’s own medical expert, respected pathologist Dr. Michael Baden, also conceded this point. The wounds Brown suffered were consistent with Brown charging toward Wilson, not running away. Contrary to accusations from hostile “witnesses” – some of whom were later found not have been at the scene at the time of the actual shooting – Brown was not running away or kneeling with his back turned toward Officer Wilson when he was shot.

To pick up the narrative at the point at which Mr. Brown, after being shot in the hand, began running away from Officer Wilson’s car, Wilson was then able to exit his police vehicle and begin pursuing Mr. Brown on foot at which time Brown suddenly turned and charged directly at the officer. Though Brown was to all appearances unarmed, the much larger Mr. Brown was nevertheless felt by Officer Wilson, who had already violently and without provocation assaulted Officer Wilson once with Wilson’s own service weapon as they fought over it, to be a danger. According to Officer Wilson, that perception is what led him to fire his weapon at the charging Michael Brown.

There was an allegation from hostile witnesses that before Michael Brown was shot and killed, he raised his hands above his head and shouted, “Hands up. Don’t shoot.” Federal investigators from the Department of Justice found no credible evidence that Brown ever raised his hands in a “don’t shoot” gesture—or in any way heeded the officer’s commands for him to surrender. Investigators also concluded Brown never uttered the now-iconic phrase “don’t shoot.” Local and State investigators concurred with the findings of the Federal investigators.

The federal investigative report concluded that “…witnesses who originally stated Brown had his hands up in surrender recanted their original accounts, admitting that they did not witness the shooting or parts of it…”

Again, from the report: “The media has widely reported that there is witness testimony that Brown said ‘don’t shoot’ as he held his hands above his head. In fact, our investigation did not reveal any eyewitness who stated that Brown said ‘don’t shoot.’”

Where did this phrase come from, then? The best guess is that it was made up by Brown’s companion, Dorian Johnson, immediately after the shooting. Witnesses described Johnson saying, “The police shot my friend and his hands were up.” And, like a game of telephone, the phrase spread quickly throughout the neighborhood, morphing into “Hands up. Don’t shoot.” Picked up and amplified by the media, it then became an anthem for activists.

A local grand jury investigation and a federal investigation both concluded that Officer Wilson was justified in his use of force. The local grand jury and the federal investigation supervised by Attorney General Eric Holder reached the same conclusion: Officer Wilson did nothing wrong. There was no basis on which to prosecute him.

The statement that an innocent black man was killed by a racist white cop in Ferguson, Missouri on that August night is a lie. Those who say otherwise are either being willfully deceptive for their own purposes or are wholly ignorant of the facts."

[Long Run]

The amount he settled for was undisclosed, so unlikely anywhere near $250,000,000,000, or even $250,000,000. Ironically, WaPo and CNN probably made the settlement contingent on confidentiality of the amount. However, that WaPo and CNN have settled such a high profile matter is an admission they let their bias lead them to libel.

[ex-khobar Andy]

It's unfortunate that the compensation Mr Sandmann receives (and I agree with LR - it's likely a long way short of the quarter of a billion he was seeking - my guess is low six figures) will likely be the best thing that has ever happened to him. I'm not saying that CNN and WaPo were right; but it's one of those cases where a public apology - 'We goofed' - ought to be enough. Plenty of victims of the current mood - Breanna Taylor, George Floyd, Ahmaud Arbery for example - will receive zero compensation.

[MajGenl.Meade]

Good for him. The media were ahead of the shark on this one and rushed to judgement. A wrong and actionable judgement

Without the lawsuit the media's incompetence, at best, and possibly other motives, at worse, would not have been disclosed.

That is totally false. Why would you tell such an obvious, verifiable lie? The media picked up on the error after more revealing video that was available. That is not to excuse their initial "assumption" that what became viral on Twitter was the entire story and their coo-gosh-wow "news" hats fell over their eyes.

Wiki, she say:

The media began to cover the story after it received a massive amount of attention on social media. At first, most media coverage neglected to provide key details to the story. Two days later, after a longer video was released, media outlets began to withdraw from their initial analysis and made edits clarifying the changes. For example, CNN titled an article "Teens in Make America Great Again hats taunted a Native American elder at the Lincoln Memorial", but upon revision, the new headline read "Teen in confrontation with Native American elder says he was trying to defuse the situation". The New York Times's original coverage was titled "Boys in ‘Make America Great Again’ Hats Mob Native Elder at Indigenous Peoples March" before following up the next day with "Fuller Picture Emerges of Viral Video of Native American Man and Catholic Students". Some organizations did not change their original writings, but added a notice directing users to newer articles with a more complete account.

The subsequent criticism of the media for their handling was sharp with the Atlantic declaring "The Media Botched the Covington Catholic Story; And the damage to their credibility will be lasting" and also "This is how the Left Destroys Itself"

[BoSoxGal]

I’m sure the settlement was a very tiny fraction of the outrageous and laughable amount the family sued for; the reputation of a teenaged kid has very little value and courts actually use metrics to determine such awards in litigation, and quite often reduce the awards made by overly emotional juries, too.

I also agree that at most an apology was in order; I’m not really sure that was even called for since it was a relevant news story that was blown up by the public on social media, not by the news outlets that originally reported the story.

In any case, this kid got well more than his 15 minutes of fame and I predict he’ll be groomed by the Federalist Society for a future as a junior Stephen Miller type.

[Sue U]

Didn't see this thread before posting about it in Politics, where I said:

Sandmann did not "win" his lawsuit. The case was settled for an undisclosed sum. There are many reasons for settlement, most often including the fact that continued litigation would be a lot more expensive than anything you could hope to ultimately recover in a verdict (if you are the claimant) and paying a settlement would be a lot cheaper than litigating all the way to a judgment (for the defendant) -- not to mention the costs and delays of an appeal if the case ever actually went to verdict.

It is unlikely that the Post or any media outlet would ultimately be found liable for defamation, which is notoriously hard to prove. Being photographed or filmed in a public place is not defamation; being inaccurately described in the photograph or film is not defamation. And even if it were proven that Sandmann was somehow "defamed," what are his losses? A jury can't just make up damages. What has he provably lost in monetary terms by being so "defamed"? What could the amount of any potential recovery be? It looks like he has actually made out rather well for himself as a result of this publicity; he might actually owe the Post some money for his windfall.

[Gob]

I bet he's now a LOT better off than he was before this...

[TPFKA@W]

the reputation of a teenaged kid has very little value and courts

So teenage lives, if they are white and Catholic, have little value to the courts. That's reassuring.
This young man had his world turned upside down by this. I am glad he got every dime he did and fuck anyone who says otherwise.

[Bicycle Bill]

the reputation of a teenaged kid has very little value and courts

So teenage lives, if they are white and Catholic, have little value to the courts. That's reassuring.
This young man had his world turned upside down by this. I am glad he got every dime he did and fuck anyone who says otherwise.

Sorry, his life may have been turned upside down, but he had his hands on the lever that was doing the tipping too.  As the old saying goes, it take two to tango.  How hard would it have been for him to have just walked away and not posed for that picture, especially with that smug, shit-eating grin on his face?

And while it may be that his world was upset over the past couple of years (and as someone above said, just how exactly was he harmed?  What irreparable or tangible damage did he sustain?), he'd have gotten over it.  This ain't the Dred Scott decision, or Roe v Wade, you know.  There's been shitty things happening to people since before they started recording history, and THEY pretty much all picked up their life and soldiered on.  Instead, he got himself some scheisser lawyer to back him in his grandstand play — a lawyer who, no doubt, saw an opportunity to make a few thousand bucks for himself too.  Yet when all is said and done, I'm betting that inside of five years this punk will be nothing more consequential than an answer to a 'Jeopardy' question, if even that.

-"BB"-

[Gob]

Why is a male kid that age interested in anti-abortion law, surely he's got more to gain by not opposing them...

Having said that, with that face and attitude, his chances of getting laid, (except by his priest,) are slim.

[TPFKA@W]

Why is a male kid that age interested in anti-abortion law,

Catholic koolaid is potent.

[Econoline]

They mix it in with the communion wine. Mmmmm...tasty!

[liberty]

I’m sure the settlement was a very tiny fraction of the outrageous and laughable amount the family sued for; the reputation of a teenaged kid has very little value and courts actually use metrics to determine such awards in litigation, and quite often reduce the awards made by overly emotional juries, too.

I also agree that at most an apology was in order; I’m not really sure that was even called for since it was a relevant news story that was blown up by the public on social media, not by the news outlets that originally reported the story.

In any case, this kid got well more than his 15 minutes of fame and I predict he’ll be groomed by the Federalist Society for a future as a junior Stephen Miller type.

So you think being branded a racist would not have any impact on his ability to reach a higher income in the future. What happens if in the future, this boy is in competition for a high-paying position and his opponent digs up this allegation and uses it to brand him a racist all over again. Would it be right for him to lose out on an opportunity in the future because someone lied about him in the past? I am not Catholic, but there is such a thing as right and wrong.

[Big RR]

I can see it now, "Well Mr. Sandman, we were going to romote you but then we saw an old internet posting that made us question if you are racist or not; so no job for you."

Kind of like how teachers told us smoking in high school could prevent us from getting into a good college if it got on your "permanent record".

[Gob]

I can see it now, "Well Mr. Sandman, we were going to romote you but then we saw an old internet posting that made us question if you are racist or not; so no job for you."

Well some trawl the internet looking for things to be offended by, and this was such a high profile event that it was even reported in the UK, and as even people from 128 years ago are expected to conform to snowflakeism these days, then yes, I can damn well believe that a racism accusation of such profile could be use against him in 10-15 years time.