The point I’m making is that a group of citizens did their duty, sat through all the evidence including Chris Kyle’s videotaped deposition, took their job seriously went through several days of deliberation and found that Kyle had indeed defamed Ventura and harmed his reputation, and they don’t deserve to be insulted just because someone dislikes Ventura.
Good. You stepped right into my trap. Allow me to deconstruct your points. FIRST: to assume that a judge is smart enough or moral enough to even determine that the jury is a good one is to place waaaaaay too much faith in judges. Most I have seen are academia nuts with no common sense. Second, to assume that I dislike Ventura is both a stretch, and not relevant. My only opinion of Ventura to this point was only that he was a political idiot, who never even understood why he won the governorship of Minnesota in the first place.
Now, as a result of this case - suing a widow and someone who can no longer defend himself - because he's dead - is simply proof that he's a despicable human being. But I did not reach that conclusion UNTIL this action. I did not bring it into the discussion.
And third, I've heard a discussion of the merits of the case - and none of the panel could understand what the jury was possibly thinking.
So your turn to try and again defend this jury, this judge, or this verdict. BAD verdicts are reached all the time.