It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

Iraq War Vet sues Michael Moore over Fahrenheit 9/11

page: 2
2
<< 1    3 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Jun, 1 2006 @ 03:51 PM
link   

Originally posted by dr_strangecraft


I don't know about that. He was on painkillers, after all.



That's a good point and the thing, I think, that he would have a point making. I was just curious as to why everyone is so against someone in "the truth movement" making money as oppossed to this guy. Not saying that he doesn't have a case, but come on 85 mill....for what?




posted on Jun, 1 2006 @ 04:50 PM
link   

Originally posted by jsobecky
Really? And do you walk around with a lawyer in your back pocket, to scrutinize every word you say every day?


nope but I also would refuse a TV interview if I didn't have my lawyer avalible because I could end up in a big mess by my words getting twisted. This guy should be happy his words didnt get twisted to fit something much worse, because it could have happened. I bet they could have spun it to make you think he was alot of things worse then anti war.



posted on Jun, 1 2006 @ 04:54 PM
link   
further more if he can prove he was mentally incapable of being able to understand what was going on, only then can he have a case able to stand in court. Unless he has the records of how much painkillers he was on at the time of the interview, then he cant have sufficient evidence to prove he wasnt mentally "there".



posted on Jun, 1 2006 @ 04:57 PM
link   

Originally posted by dr_strangecraft

Originally posted by dgtempe

He is not mentally challenged.



I don't know about that. He was on painkillers, after all.


Was he of sound mind when he signed his release, or too high to know the difference. The "reality" show COPS makes a living by getting consent from people too high to know what they are getting into . . .

.
You have a point there- but nobody twisted his arms 000ps, you know what i mean!
Does anyone know just how high he was? There is such a thing as taking advantage of someone not of the right mindset, but they would have to prove that.
If he can prove he was doped up with morphine or some equally potent narcotic, he may have a case. I dont think a coupla Vicodans are gonna cut it.



posted on Jun, 1 2006 @ 05:08 PM
link   

Originally posted by grimreaper797
further more if he can prove he was mentally incapable of being able to understand what was going on, only then can he have a case able to stand in court. Unless he has the records of how much painkillers he was on at the time of the interview, then he cant have sufficient evidence to prove he wasnt mentally "there".

Since he was still under miltary guardianship. and in Walter Reed at the time, I doubt very much that he would have any problem producing records of how much of what he took during that period of time.

Not to mention that he was under the influence of a "new" painkiller, so all of it's side effects are most likely still to be discovered.

quote: from dgtempe
You have a point there- but nobody twisted his arms 000ps, you know what i mean!


Twisted sister!:shk:



Anyone know just how high he was? There is such a thing as taking advantage of someone not of the right mindset, but they would have to prove that.
If he can prove he was doped up with morphine or some equally potent narcotic, he may have a case. I dont think a coupla Vicodans are gonna cut it.


As the article says, he was under the influence of a "new" painkiller that the military is using. I don't know it's ingredients, but I'm sure it's more potent than a couple of Vicodans.

[edit on 1-6-2006 by jsobecky]

[edit on 1-6-2006 by jsobecky]



posted on Jun, 1 2006 @ 05:23 PM
link   
these are all things that he would have to prove. A lack of evidence doesnt mean he was true. If they cant provide any evidence that the painkillers caused him to be mentally incapacitated(sp?) then regardless of if he was or not, he wont win the case. He might very well have been, but that doesnt mean he can prove he was. What makes it worse is that its a test drug so they might not be able to prove how much is a dose is mentally disabling. That would make it hard for them to prove their case of being under the influence of painkillers. If they cant prove the painkiller will have that effect then they REALLY dont have a case.

Personally I hope he does have a case, and he does win some money for the misrepresentation (though i dont think he deserves anywhere close to 85 million)



posted on Jun, 1 2006 @ 05:25 PM
link   
I tried to dig a little deeper into this and found some stories from 2004. It sounds like there is a possibility that he never signed a release with NBC.



A spokeswoman at NBC News explained the company's policy of making news footage available for use in the public domain.

"As all news organizations do, NBC News does license footage that has already aired on NBC programs. As a general rule, most news organizations, including NBC News, do not obtain releases from people who appear on our news programs. When we do license footage - as in this instance - NBC includes a provision that it is the responsibility of the licensee, not NBC, to obtain all required consents and releases necessary to use the footage," the spokeswoman said in an e-mail.

thenewsstar.gannettonline.com...

If NBC didn't have a release, and MM didn't contact him for one, he may very well have a case. If so, it was sloppy work on the part of Moore and his production staff.



posted on Jun, 1 2006 @ 05:44 PM
link   

Originally posted by dr_strangecraft

Originally posted by dgtempe

He is not mentally challenged.



I don't know about that. He was on painkillers, after all.


Was he of sound mind when he signed his release, or too high to know the difference. The "reality" show COPS makes a living by getting consent from people too high to know what they are getting into . . .

.


My point EXACTLY.

If he was hopped up on loads of painkillers, legally, he was not in a lucid enough state of mind to consent to anything legally binding.

Its like getting consent for sex from a person who is intoxicated.



posted on Jun, 1 2006 @ 05:47 PM
link   

Originally posted by grimreaper797
these are all things that he would have to prove. A lack of evidence doesnt mean he was true. If they cant provide any evidence that the painkillers caused him to be mentally incapacitated(sp?) then regardless of if he was or not, he wont win the case. He might very well have been, but that doesnt mean he can prove he was.

Let me say this: put this to a vote of 12 jurors of his peers and I would take my chances that he would win hands down. Regardless of "expert" testimony on the known and unknown effects of the drug.

Don't forget the human element.



posted on Jun, 1 2006 @ 05:48 PM
link   

Its like getting consent for sex from a person who is intoxicated.

Whoa...are you saying there are other ways?



posted on Jun, 1 2006 @ 06:15 PM
link   

Originally posted by jsobecky

Its like getting consent for sex from a person who is intoxicated.

Whoa...are you saying there are other ways?
Who's twisted?




posted on Jun, 1 2006 @ 06:21 PM
link   

Originally posted by jsobecky

Whoa...are you saying there are other ways?


Good Point! Ive heard there are other ways, but why bother when a fifth of JD is almost surely a 95% success rate!


I find the allegory in this case fitting, regarding MM and this soldier.

Soldier was too doped up to give consent, so MM took advantage of him and screwed him.

Sounds about right!



posted on Jun, 1 2006 @ 06:25 PM
link   

Originally posted by Skadi_the_Evil_Elf
Good Point! Ive heard there are other ways, but why bother when a fifth of JD is almost surely a 95% success rate!


I find the allegory in this case fitting, regarding MM and this soldier.

Soldier was too doped up to give consent, so MM took advantage of him and screwed him.

Sounds about right!


Jeez, you all make me scared to drink anymore!
Feeling slightly twisted today?

I like scotch.



posted on Jun, 1 2006 @ 06:45 PM
link   
No matter what....its up to the courts now.

But it is nice to see MM squirm a little don't you think?



posted on Jun, 1 2006 @ 08:13 PM
link   
All I have to say is go rent Fahrenhype 9/11and see how much Moore misrepresented the people he interviewed. They may have given the interview but careful editing can give a totally different impression than what the person being interviewed may have meant. And its not just this person, but a lot of people who were interviewed were duped by this technique, and all to gain some pathetic “credibility”. Again, go rent Fahrenhype 9/11.



posted on Jun, 1 2006 @ 10:01 PM
link   
Sure he might have meant the things he said. But what if he was saying something else and Moore took it out of context. I could say im a terrorist hating redneck, but with precision editing someone could be like heres an interview with a terrorist.



posted on Jun, 2 2006 @ 01:55 AM
link   
In order to discuss this issue intelligibly, we need to know what the segment of this guy in the movie shows and exactly what he said. Since Michael Moore was there with a microphone you can safely conclude that the guy knew he was being interviewed by Michael Moore for inclusion in the movie, with full disclosure, and all required releases.

On its face, the guy's claim is a loser. Certainly, any soldier who lost his limbs in the Iraq war is newsworthy, whether the soldier is personally for or against the war, it is newsworthy.

The guy should sue the U.S. Government which sent him to this war that it started on false pretenses.

I saw the movie but don't recall the details of that particular segment. Anyone have a copy of the movie? Can you post the text of the interview here? Then maybe we can have an intelligent discussion about it.



[edit on 6/2/2006 by dubiousone]



posted on Jun, 2 2006 @ 01:55 AM
link   
[Removed double post]

[edit on 6/2/2006 by dubiousone]



posted on Jun, 2 2006 @ 07:26 AM
link   
rotflmao

I think this is a perfect example of misdirected anger. c'mon???

Oh if only Malboro Man had some recourse too with MM...perhaps then he wouldnt be sitting all post traumatic stressly broke and cooked... hey? oh if only you could estoppe the Govt...ah tripe...thats only private law...truckers!!!!!!

look, if ya cant estoppe the Govt and no chance of $$$ in compensation then who CAN ya scweeeew???? anyone, absolutely anyone else than the Govt? hey?? woooo hoooo tell your friends...we have some real misdirected anger going on here lol

Well, most people cant get the SOBs child wapists/paedophiles in court because of statutory limitations but they can sue anyone else cos they can for BS just cos their angry ... lol

think this dudey needs some therapy.



posted on Jun, 2 2006 @ 07:51 AM
link   
There are a few more points that need to be considered here. When you are a member of the military it is illegal for you to make statements to the press concerning military matters. This is why every command has a PAO (Public Afairs Officer). It is entirely possible that the PAO gave consent to the NBC interview. I think that he has an excellant chance of winning this lawsuit. We will know how good his chances are when NBC settles out of court. I don't think that Moore's ego will let him settle out of court. I'm looking foreward to seeing this one on Court TV.


By the way the man's injuries didn't happen from a helicopter explosion. They happened when a tire on a Blackhawk helicopter that he was servicing exploded.
I'm not going into the negligence involved in this injury but, this type of injury could just as easily happened in the US as in Iraq.

Link to CNN story where I got information on how injury occurred




top topics



 
2
<< 1    3 >>

log in

join