Alex Jones told to pay $965M damages to Sandy Hook victims' families

You are correct that it is about the target, its just odd that you read something contrary to that into my comment.

The standard for acquitting is reasonable doubt. You're presumed innocent until proven guilty, so in theory you aren't necessarily required to prove your innocence beyond a shadow of a doubt. While it may work differently in practice at times, that idea IS actually a great one.

So yes, it may still be possible that someone who is acquitted is in fact guilty, but the prosecution isn't allowed a second chance.

- these people had their children murdered.

- jurors have now spent weeks hearing more direct evidence than any of us

- even Alex Jones admitted multiple times that he is a liar, and spreads these lies for money

- the jurors determined that 1) there was harm and 2) the COMPENSATORY damages [0] for only part of the victims is $965 million

- the police are neither motivated, capable, nor often successful at gathering enough evidence to prosecute anonymous telephone or public threats made by cowards who try to make threats anonymously.

YET, with all those facts, you think it is appropriate to FURTHER question the integrity of the victims.

You make very clear that you have no idea what you are talking about, and are likely one of the idiots who laps up the lies from the likes of the defendant.

Rethink your life, and at least stop posting idiocy dressed up as "oh, just asking questions". You are only displaying your inability to think or even to get a clue, not persuading anyone.

Yikes.

[0] compensatory damages are damages to compensate for the harm itself, as opposed to punitive damages, which have not yet been determined in this trial.

In a criminal case, the prosecution does not typically rely on a defendant's cooperation with a discovery process. Instead, the state obtains a warrant to search the defendant's property and gather the evidence required to build their case. If this were a criminal trial, the police would have shown up at Alex's house and place of work. If Alex refused to let the police search his property, they would have used whatever physical force was necessary to remove Alex and execute a lawful search of his property. Then a trial would have happened using any lawfully discovered evidence. Jones cannot ignore a warrant; guns and battering rams and overwhelming force will compel him to comply.

This sequence of events is not possible in civil cases, because civil courts do not typically use force to compel discovery. Instead, they have only the threat of a default judgement to compel discovery. The state has less power to compel discovery, so in cases of obstruction the recourse to the aggrieved party is different.

The common denominator is that proper trial cannot happen if one party can arbitrarily withhold key evidence from the other party. You CANNOT simply refuse to let the police execute a lawful warrant and expect to proceed with a normal trial. The state will execute the warrant. Similarly, you CANNOT simply refuse to share evidence with the plaintiff and expect to proceed with a normal trial. The state will not bring a battering ram to your home, but it will find you guilty by default.

This wasn't a show trial, and Alex wasn't "refused" a trial. He had a right to a trial to determine innocence or guilt. He chose to give up that right by repeatedly and willfully refusing the comply with discovery requests.

I understand that this is the opinion of you and others. That doesn't make it the law.

> take a look at Gibson Bros., Inc v. Oberlin College

In that case, there was evidence of communications by college officials saying things like "I hope we rain fire and brimstone down on that store". Also, the college has a responsibility for the behavior of its students that Alex Jones and his associates and employees do not have for the behavior of random nutjobs that have no association with them. So the facts in the cases are different and I don't think the Oberlin case shows a general justification for "damages from harassment" being part of a defamation claim.

> Two other examples, of course, would be the recent Alex Jones cases in TX and CT where the same reasoning also let to economic damage awards...

I didn't see that in any of the actual legal documents in those cases.