i’m just boggled by the belief from supposedly progressive people that woman are incapable of ever lying and male victims of abuse deserve no sympathy, but hey, guess i’m mentally older than ten and grew past playground gender wars.

Naive. Familiarize yourself with the reality of how testimony actually works in reality.

what’s terrifying is that plenty of folks here who consider themselves moral and progressive human beings really will, if pressed, argue that it’s impossible for a woman to physically abuse a man. shit, they’ll bend over backwards to argue that he ‘deserved it’ or that simply because he’s a man, it’s acceptable. no…

she used the term ‘domestic abuse’, but y’all are pretending that term is broader than it is to make your point, so.

you’re literally arguing that because of the perceived ‘importance’ of the piece, someone who feels they were wrongfully accused has no right to defend themselves? somehow who THEMSELVES, as you and others are ignoring because penis, claims to have been victimized? do you hear how monstrous that sounds? if she’s…

your argument here is dependent on the automatic assumption that she couldn’t possibly be lying about anything whatsoever. but that’s kinda your schtick, so hey.

other cases do not having bearing on current ones, and shouldn’t. a verdict is not airtight evidence of truth.

you’re literally arguing that something as subjective as ‘tHe TrUtH’ should mean case closed. numerous people here have parsed the definitions at play and you keep on basically saying ‘but this happened, so the end!’

the definition of ‘victim’ and ‘abuser’ depends on genitals for most people here, but they simply aren’t even brave enough with such a monstrous conviction to come out and say it.

ironic, considering that this comment section is literally advocating for a fast-and-loose wild west approach to justice. and y’know, you’re saying this to a lawyer.

no surprise that that’s as far as you read. 

lol. ‘the juror is dumb’ *goes on to criticize them for following impressions that every jury considers in their reasoning*

Perhaps you’d like the definition of ‘domestic abuse’ to change to account for all abuse, but that’s not how the term works, sorry.

And the results of a past case are not, in our legal system, supposed to guarantee an outcome in a new case. Sorry that’s inconvenient to you, but sometimes (often) past court cases get…

yep. you’re dealing with people who’s definition of ‘victim’ and ‘abuser’ depends on their genitals, so there’s no winning here. the strawmen and ad hominem will flow and the goalposts will keep shifting.

except that pretending the word “physical” doesn’t appear means it wasn’t plain enough to you, apparently

it’s team sports here, not logic. the goal-posts will shift back and forth endlessly. there’s no convincing anyone.

*stood up to someone who abused him trying to drag his name through the mud, when you feel she should’ve gotten away with doing so without, as the juror here stated, compelling evidence.

sorry it’s inconvenient to you that an abuse victim who has a penis stood up for themselves. they were both abusive, but abuse is…

they’re a lawyer, but cool

Poor, poor abusive Amber Heard, who gets a pass because vagina.

Evil, wicked abuse victim Johnny Depp, who gets snark I guess because penis, and standing up to someone extending their abuse of him through trying to drag HIS name through the mud.  

do y’all hear yourselves? They were both abused and abusive. Abuse…

The juror (and the others, it seems) believed some form of abuse was committed by both of them.

They did not feel that the case was made that Depp was physically abusive.

This really isn’t hard when the article states it so clearly.