In misc.legal.moderated, on Sat, 2 Apr 2022 19:32:37 -0700 (PDT), Elle N
>On Saturday, April 2, 2022 at 4:08:22 PM UTC-5, Rick wrote:
>> >I think at work here is the legal theory of judicial efficiency. The police
>> >and district attorneys are so underfunded, and the courts are so backed
>> >up, that not everything gets prosecuted. This is perhaps especially so
>> >when the alleged victim refuses to press charges. And perhaps especially
>> >so when the alleged victim has savagely derided the attacker's wife,
>> >invaded the couple's privacy, provoked an angry response, and so on.
>> > So a defense attorney might argue as mitigating circumstances,
>> I think the invasion of privacy argument might not fly given that both the
>> attacker and his wife are well-known A-list celebrities and that the wife
>> has been very public about her condition. If Jada were just Jane Smith,
>> private individual, and she had been keeping her condition private, then
>> yes, it's a major invasion. But it's really a stretch for a major
>> Hollywood star like Jada Pinkett Smith to complain her privacy was invaded
>> when a comedian made an off-handed joke about a medical condition she has
>> talked about so openly.
I'm late to this thread, but I've read the whole thing and no one has
made my exact point.
(I hope people see this since it's so high up on the list of posts)
>I agree that a lawsuit alleging the tort of invasion of privacy is unlikely to be
>successful, and for the reasons you give. But I think the notion could be
>invoked as a mitigating circumstance, particularly if somehow expanded
>on to be, for one, interfering with marital relations.
In my entire life, outside of a sports match, I've never seen two people
fight, and in school, no one even teased anyone else, even in grades 1-6
the girl who stuttered or the two girls who never knew the answer, no
one ever even snickered. We just waited patiently, quietly, until the
teacher went on to something else.
And I have never hit anyone except one guy, and I only slapped him, and
he deserved it. And he took it without responding, and we stayed
friends for 15 more years (until he did something else verrry obnoxious
and we argued without end.)
So it's surprising to me that I would take the macho point of view here.
And that is, that Rock deserved it. And he knew it, so while he didn't
consent in advance, he realized it when he got hit and consented
retroactively. Not that the police or a jury would really be worried
about such fine points, just that he deserved it and this is how two men
settle some issues. After all, Smith only hit him once and afaik he
didn't break anything. It sounded loud but there was a microphone right
there which made it sound louder.
>I'm just saying that (1) Will Smith's defense counsel would pull out all
>the best, strategic stops; and (2) money buys justice. As I watch various
>district attorneys, U S attorneys, and attorney generals try to "get"
>Trump, I suspect one reason they are possibly not be giving this their full
>effort is for judicial efficiency reasons. In other words, they're broke.
>I'm in the camp that sees the Academy as hypocritical, given all the
>violence its movies promote.
I hadn't even considered the violent movies, and without considering
theme, I thought, and think, that banning Chris for N years was way over
the top, as if they were some tea-drinking, little-finger sticking out,
afternoon social club where everything must be proper, don't you know.
It's not like Smith is going to start a trend, and Rock could learn from
Michael Richards and IMO Jerry Seinfeld that comedians have no sense of
what's funny and what's in bad taste.
>Perhaps strangely, what Smith did does not bother me meaningfully.
FTR I discussed this with my ex-girlfriend and she says everything I
just said is wrong.
I think you can tell, but just to be sure:
I am not a lawyer.