Author Topic: Micheal moore gets His LOL (Read 676 times)

mrblack · « **on:** October 29, 2003, 03:21:43 PM »

Nichols' Brother Sues 'Columbine' Director
2 hours, 46 minutes ago

DETROIT - James Nichols, the brother of Oklahoma City bombing conspirator Terry Nichols, says he was tricked into appearing in the documentary "Bowling for Columbine," according to a federal lawsuit filed against filmmaker Michael Moore (news).

AP Photo

Nichols also alleges in the lawsuit, filed Monday in Detroit, that Moore libeled him by linking him to the terrorist act.

Nichols accuses Moore of libel, defamation of character, invasion of privacy and intentional infliction of emotional distress. His lawyer is asking for a jury trial and damages ranging from $10 million to $20 million on each of nine counts, the Detroit Free Press reported.

A message seeking comment was left Tuesday with Moore's publicist.

In the film, Moore asks Nichols for an interview and steers the subject from the Oklahoma City bombing to gun ownership. Nichols tells Moore he has a gun under his pillow, and Moore asks Nichols to show him.

In the lawsuit, Nichols, who lives in Decker, said Moore misled him about the purpose of the interview.

"Bowling for Columbine" won the feature-length documentary Academy Award earlier this year.

majic · « **Reply #1 on:** October 29, 2003, 03:44:40 PM »

Those two deserve each other.

rpm · « **Reply #2 on:** October 29, 2003, 03:48:25 PM »

So we're rooting for domestic terrorists now?

Pooh21 · « **Reply #3 on:** October 29, 2003, 03:54:48 PM »

of course not, we should do what the Romans did. Stick em both in a sack with a rabid badger, and toss em all in a river. Whoever pops back up wins the lawsuit. My moneys on the badger.

Tarmac · « **Reply #4 on:** October 29, 2003, 04:10:20 PM »

Quote

Originally posted by Pooh21
of course not, we should do what the Romans did. Stick em both in a sack with a rabid badger, and toss em all in a river. Whoever pops back up wins the lawsuit. My moneys on the badger.

That is the greatest tort reform plan I've ever heard.

Kweassa · « **Reply #5 on:** October 29, 2003, 09:30:01 PM »

Romans, never did that.

The medieval Europeans did those stuff. Romans and Arabs in their days, resorted to a strict justice system of judges, jurors, and a trial based on systematic logic of proofs and evidences. To the Romans the law meant everything, and to the Arabs, a law system such as the European judicial system of tossing people into water, burning them, or putting quarreling people through a duel, was considered as barbaric mockery of the spirit of justice.

Dinger · « **Reply #6 on:** October 30, 2003, 01:05:12 AM »

uhhhh, trial by ordeal wasn't exactly as big or as random as you'd think in the Middle Ages.
the fourth lateran council outlawed it in 1215, and that caused a judicial crisis in Europe. Continental europe went the roman law, inquisitorial judge with torture as a means of verification of the facts route. Great Britain transferred the civil law notion of asking 12 men of the region (of the country) to swear (hency juratus) what the facts were. To put the case to god and country is to submit to a trial by jury.

Anyway, before then, the "ordeal" cases turn out not to have been as random as you'd think. By the time they got to tying a guy up and chucking him into a river (women, with their higher body fat, would almost invariably float, and be pronounced guilty, so they devised other ordeals for them), they usually knew guilt.

The glorious tort law of the US is largely due to a serious of historical accidents culminating in Blackstone's Commentary on the Laws of England.
Alas.

DmdNexus · « **Reply #7 on:** October 30, 2003, 01:13:27 AM »

Quote

Originally posted by Dinger
uhhhh, trial by ordeal wasn't exactly as big or as random as you'd think in the Middle Ages.
the fourth lateran council outlawed it in 1215, and that caused a judicial crisis in Europe. Continental europe went the roman law, inquisitorial judge with torture as a means of verification of the facts route. Great Britain transferred the civil law notion of asking 12 men of the region (of the country) to swear (hency juratus) what the facts were. To put the case to god and country is to submit to a trial by jury.

Anyway, before then, the "ordeal" cases turn out not to have been as random as you'd think. By the time they got to tying a guy up and chucking him into a river (women, with their higher body fat, would almost invariably float, and be pronounced guilty, so they devised other ordeals for them), they usually knew guilt.

The glorious tort law of the US is largely due to a serious of historical accidents culminating in Blackstone's Commentary on the Laws of England.
Alas.

Is there going to be a test on this?

Holden McGroin · « **Reply #8 on:** October 30, 2003, 02:28:31 AM »

I seem to remember that in England around the time of first millenium, they changed the trial by ordeal.

Apparently a more enlightened judiciary found that "if she weighs as much as a duck, she's made of wood, and therefore she's a witch."

AKIron · « **Reply #9 on:** October 30, 2003, 09:39:34 AM »

Quote

Originally posted by rpm371
So we're rooting for domestic terrorists now?

Which is it that makes him a terrorist? Being the brother to one or having a gun under the pillow?

Zippatuh · « **Reply #10 on:** October 30, 2003, 10:06:09 AM »

I finally watched the documentary after reading and hearing so much about it. Me being an avid gun enthusiast I was ready for the worst.

Aside from being a bit jaded, all in all it was a good film. There are a few facts and percentages that I think were skewed or left out and the slavery cartoon was bit much, but still it made it’s point.

We have a lot of nuts in the USA and most all of them have access to firearms. Did he show the average gun owner, no I don’t think he did. The obvious ludicrously that some US gun owners have was well shown.

As for the brother, he’s more ignorant than Heston was. At least Heston can have the argument of old age insanity. Moore may have edited the movie but Nichol’s was the one that came off a nut.

With what Nichols said during the interview it was easy to draw a conclusion that he could have been involved but there was no evidence to support it.

Just because you can’t prove it doesn’t make it false. I took him for a poor guy that got wrapped up in what his brother was doing. After the movie, the guy’s a nut and it very well could be possible he knew everything, or at least something was going on.

He did it to himself. If you don’t want the whole world to see it, then maybe you shouldn’t sign the release form.

AKIron · « **Reply #11 on:** October 30, 2003, 10:13:23 AM »

I haven't watched it yet but it's on my list, right below Jane Fonda's workout video.

From what I've read about it though there are many intentional misrepresentaions if not outright lies. IMO it only takes one attempt to mislead to cast doubt upon all credibility.

Zippatuh · « **Reply #12 on:** October 30, 2003, 10:32:26 AM »

Misleading, maybe, it’s only misleading if you take what you are seeing in the film as representing the vast majority of gun owners. It doesn’t. I’m not even sure that he says that it does.

His views are skewed toward his beliefs but I even found it ridiculous that a bank has 500 firearms on hand in their vault. The statement he makes about “no one sees a problem with handing out firearms in a bank?” well, yeah I can see a problem with that. Obviously the citizens of that town didn’t.

The same movie could have been made except starting off in NYC with beginning to apply for a gun permit. I’m not sure of all the NYC details but from what I understand it takes awhile to get one. Then went on to show Suzie homemaker running the kids to soccer practice, going to the grocery store, making a few calls at work, and hitting the firing range about once or twice a month with the single firearm that she owns. The whole movie could leave out all statistics on crime and gun ownership and anything that could even remotely be considered derogatory to guns.

Now, does that accurately depict gun ownership in the USA either?

It was a good flick, he’s not a philosopher trying to argue both sides. He has a view, money, and a camera so he made a movie.

AKIron · « **Reply #13 on:** October 30, 2003, 10:38:38 AM »

You have the advantage having watched it. All I know about it is what I've read. From what I've read though he took many things and intentionally reported them out of context to match his personal views. If true, nothing he says can be trusted.

I don't have strong enough feelings about him or his issues to justify contributing monetarily towards his career by renting his video.

Zippatuh · « **Reply #14 on:** October 30, 2003, 10:58:09 AM »

I can understand not wanting to contribute by renting the video. If you have strong feelings about it though, I would recommend seeing it. Maybe someone else will have a copy or it will come out on cable.

What’s the cliché, information is power. If Al Jazeera wasn’t a pay channel I’d be watching it occasionally too.

Find out what the argument is from the source. Remember that whoever is writing about it is also writing from their own view point as well.

My wife left me alone with the movie, ready for my blood to boil. I didn’t even reach a simmer, but I did get red once or twice

.