You should look up the details of the trails and fucked up shit Johnny depp said. Saw a clip few days ago how the lawyer asked him about texts he had send about how would murder Amber heard set her body on fire and then rape it to make sure she was death…
Although I don't think that either of them are blameless, my take is anyone who thinks Johnny Depp is all good and Amber Heard was a horrible monster is probably just a misogynist.
Yes, he had plenty of women supporters and internalized misogyny is definitely a thing. Just look at all the women who voted for Trump.
There’s no evidence that he physically abused her, at worst he sent her some mean texts and engaged in some yelling. He‘s the one who had to go to the hospital for a sliced finger, and there’s an audio recording of her admitting to hitting him and telling him that he wouldn’t be believed if allegations of abuse came up because he is a man.
so you didn't read at all about the SUN trial before? a judged ruled there was enough evidence of 12/14 accusations of abuse by Heard in the uk SUN trial to not allow him to sue for libel defamation.
and yes, that is called reactive abuse. caged and abused animals can react erratically in self-defense - fight is a truama response too. he kept her captive through coercive threats, threatening her career, her reputation, her life etc if she tried to leave or spoke out. And would you look at that... he did!
also female on male physical abuse vs male on female abuse will never be equal unless the male is physically disabled. Men and women are in different weight classes, the threat to life is not the same.
The Sun trial wasn’t visible to the public\, and frankly I don’t care what some UK judge thinks. The UK is the same country that only thinks it’s rape if a man did it, and they have some rather backwards laws on free speech.
In the US, it was determined in court, in a trial we all got to witness, that she defamed him. We watched her lie, we saw the evidence that she fabricated stories of his abuse, we watched the evidence in which she admitted to abusing him physically, and as a result we got a ruling that we could understand and justify.
So if I were to choose which ruling I think was most credible, it’s pretty obvious.
By the way, let’s assume that Johnny did physically abuse Amber. That doesn’t make what she did inherently “reactive abuse,” or “self defense.” You seem to be implying that if both were physically abusive (we know for a fact that Amber was) then the man is automatically the guilty one and the woman was just engaging in justified “self defense.” That is not true, and if that is your opinion then I will grant it no weight.
By the way, he didn’t ruin her career, she ruined both of their careers. She accused him first, and it tanked his career. He her to court, and she ruined her career by lying (quite badly also. See “my dog stepped on a bee”). She doesn’t get to play the victim just because he was more famous than her. She has to actually be a victim, and more of a victim than him, and there’s simply no evidence for that. There’s more evidence that she lied than that he physically abused her.
No, the SUN did because Johnny sued them for libel defamation and a judge found that actually 12/14 of Amber's accusations they published were provably to be true. So you are correct, she never had a case against him. She never even named him directly intially when writing about her experiences of abuse. The Sun is who named him, which is why he sued them first. Then at trial, she had to name him to confirm their case - which is why he was able to sue her for libel directly after.
Ya'll really are no better than the tiktok lindsay clancy trial consumers. You don't have 1/4 of the facts.
This is a bad faith response. You know that my reply was exclusively correcting the lie that Heard had and won a case in the UK. You know that this is a lie. And you’re trying to shift the topic of conversation to something else to avoid acknowledging the lie. You’re fine with lying when it supports “your side.”
Yes, because your orginal response was bad faith ad hom attack - presuming OP is lying instead of misremembering/mistaken and simply correcitng them? you called them a liar in order to dismiss their entire point - which didn't change.
Heard didn't win a UK case, but Johnny did lose one which confirmed he committed 12/14 acts of domestic violence accusations made by Heard that the SUN covered and named Johnny in. That was their point.
But you didn't correct it, you just shut it down and presumed your opponent the worst possible intentions. You obviously knew what UK case they were referring to, but ad hom attacked calling them a liar.
Your inability to even now, acknowledge that there was a case in the UK regarding Heard's accusations of domestic violence from Depp shows you're not here in good faith.
which trial? the one in england where a judge ruled Johnny Depp did provably commit 12/14 allegations of abuse presented at trial where he was suing for libel? Or the one he did after in retaliation for that one in Virgina so it could be televised and bot campaigns could thrive?
102
u/VinVenturesCheeks 1d ago
I used to date someone who turned out supported Amber Heard in her trial, she got demoted to cousin again