On Veteran’s Day, Jesse Ventura Undermines His Own Victory Over Chris Kyle’s Widow

So via Twitchy we learn that Jesse Ventura has proven himself to be a real grade-A schmuck, again.  My language would be stronger, but I avoid cursing on this blog.  But here is what he said:

I hate to say it but Id be a conscientious objector today. I don’t believe that the military fights for our freedom. http://t.co/VucoqFFdlD
— Jesse Ventura (@GovJVentura) November 11, 2014

This is apparently in response to a Salon piece that has stirred up some controversy.  But I want to keep the focus on what Ventura said.

There is a difference between what is legal and what is moral.  While legality tracks morality to a great extent, it doesn’t always.  A good example of this is the fact there is no duty to rescue, as a rule.  Now let me be clear that this is not legal advice and you should check local laws and precedents, but as a rule of thumb you don’t have a duty to rescue.  There are exceptions in most common law jurisdictions (for instance, spouses have a duty to rescue each other, and parents almost always have a duty to rescue their minor children), but as a rule I can see a stranger drowning, I can have the means to rescue them without putting my own safety at risk and yet I break no law if I simply walk away leaving that person to drown.  And yet, I am sure most of us would be appalled if I did such a thing, and I do think a moral duty is violated in such a case, even if not a legal one.

On a similar note, it was legal, but immoral for Jesse Ventura to sue and prevail against the widow of Chris Kyle.  As you might know, Chris Kyle claimed that he decked Ventura in a bar after Ventura allegedly said that our military “deserved to lose some.”  Bear in mind, Kyle claimed that this was said at the wake for a fallen SEAL, which happened to be at a bar Ventura was allegedly at, randomly.  Although Ventura claimed the whole story was made up, according to this account Ventura only felt the claim of what he said was defamatory: “Ventura said in court that he doesn’t feel defamed by the claim of getting decked, but defamed by that specific quote, which depicts him as wishing death on fellow Americans.”

And more than a few people at the time thought it was immoral, although not illegal to keep the suit going after Chris Kyle died, and thus take from the widow money that might have supported her in his absence, it was still scummy, and that hurt Ventura’s reputation.  That is key.  The law doesn’t punish lying generally, but only lies that hurt one’s reputation.  For instance, if I lied and said that Jennifer Lawrence showed up at an orphan’s home last Thursday and gave out free candy, she probably wouldn’t have a cause of action for defamation because that doesn’t typically harm her reputation.  Or to pick another example, there is Ray v. Time, Inc.  In that case, James Earl Ray, the assassin of Martin Luther King, Jr. claimed that Time Magazine and one of its sources in an article had defamed him.  This is what the court said, there:

There remain for consideration plaintiff's averments that McMillan (and Time, Inc. as publisher) [libeled] him as a "narcotics addict and peddler" and that Huie defamed him by referring to him as a robber.

The Court is persuaded, in the light of all the circumstances in this cause and in the public record involved in the other cases mentioned, that plaintiff, James E. Ray, is libel-proof, as that term was used in Cardillo v. Doubleday & Co., Inc., 518 F.2d 638, 639 (2d Cir. 1975) (Oakes, J.). Ray, as Cardillo, is a convicted habitual criminal and is so unlikely to be able to recover damages to his reputation as to warrant dismissal of his libel claim in the light of First Amendment considerations attendant to publication of material dealing with his background and his criminal activities.

What the court was getting at is that the crimes for which Ray had been convicted was so damaging to his reputation that as a matter of law no one could harm it further.  And that just makes sense.  Are there many people who would say, “sure, you killed the Reverend Martin Luther King, Jr., the modern American saint, but I thought you were a swell guy until I found out you were a drug dealer”?  Now, again, that separates law and morality.  If Time had lied about Ray, that would be wrong, but the court felt it could not be defamation because there was no possibility of harming Ray’s reputation.

So likewise, any harm that was done to Ventura’s reputation by Kyle’s claim that Ventura said we deserved to lose a few SEALs, is pretty much eliminated by what he said today.  There is a difference, obviously, between saying our troops deserved to die, and saying that he would refuse to fight for this country and that our soldiers never fight for freedom any longer.  But the difference is so slight that we are splitting hairs.  It reminds me of another defamation-proof case, Jackson v. Longscope, and to see how absurd that case was—how pointless it was to claim that the Plaintiff in question had been defamed—you only need to read this portion:

On May 24, 1977, Jackson wrote a letter to the defendant Longcope demanding a correction of the statement that the shootout with the Cambridge police occurred during a stolen car chase and the statement that all the victims of "the hitch-hike murders" were raped and strangled. He asserted that the car was not stolen, that not all the hitch-hike murder victims were raped, and that not all were strangled.

Seriously, even if Jackson was right, would such corrections really improve your opinion of Mr. Jackson?  I doubt it.  Likewise, the difference between what Kyle said Ventura said, and what Ventura actually said on his twitter account is very slight at best.

Now, the trial is over and subsequent events cannot vitiate such a verdict.  Ventura could confess tomorrow that the entire story Chris Kyle told was true and the verdict would not be overturned for that reason.  So, legally speaking, Kyle’s widow has no cause of action to get back her money.

But morally, Ventura has completely undermined the verdict.  He has symbolically spat on our soldiers and indeed his words were so vile it calls into question the factual correctness of that verdict.  If this is what he says today, is it so hard to believe that maybe he really did say what Chris Kyle said he said after all, and he just buffaloed that jury?  I can’t say.  I wasn’t there.  But his comments today make it clear that this is the kind of thing he would say.  And if Ventura had any decency left (Ha!), he would recognize that whatever happened in that bar, he his own reputation for supporting our troops has died tonight, of an apparent suicide.  And since the award was supposed to compensate him for the harm to his reputation, he should give back all or most of it to Kyle’s widow.

No law says he has to, of course, but it is the right thing to do.

---------------------------------------

My wife and I have lost our jobs due to the harassment of convicted terrorist (and adjudicated pedophile) Brett Kimberlin, including an attempt to get us killed and to frame me for a crime carrying a sentence of up to ten years.  I know that claim sounds fantastic, but if you read starting here, you will see absolute proof of these claims using documentary and video evidence.  If you would like to help in the fight to hold Mr. Kimberlin accountable, please hit the donation link on the right.  And thank you.

Follow me at Twitter @aaronworthing, mostly for snark and site updates.  And you can purchase my book (or borrow it for free if you have Amazon Prime), Archangel: A Novel of Alternate, Recent History here.  And you can read a little more about my novel, here.

---------------------------------------

Disclaimer:

I have accused some people, particularly Brett Kimberlin, of reprehensible conduct.  In some cases, the conduct is even criminal.  In all cases, the only justice I want is through the appropriate legal process—such as the criminal justice system.  I do not want to see vigilante violence against any person or any threat of such violence.  This kind of conduct is not only morally wrong, but it is counter-productive.

In the particular case of Brett Kimberlin, I do not want you to even contact him.  Do not call him.  Do not write him a letter.  Do not write him an email.  Do not text-message him.  Do not engage in any kind of directed communication.  I say this in part because under Maryland law, that can quickly become harassment and I don’t want that to happen to him.

And for that matter, don’t go on his property.  Don’t sneak around and try to photograph him.  Frankly try not to even be within his field of vision.  Your behavior could quickly cross the line into harassment in that way too (not to mention trespass and other concerns).

And do not contact his organizations, either.  And most of all, leave his family alone.

The only exception to all that is that if you are reporting on this, there is of course nothing wrong with contacting him for things like his official response to any stories you might report.  And even then if he tells you to stop contacting him, obey that request.  That this is a key element in making out a harassment claim under Maryland law—that a person asks you to stop and you refuse.

And let me say something else.  In my heart of hearts, I don’t believe that any person supporting me has done any of the above.  But if any of you have, stop it, and if you haven’t don’t start.