According to the evidence, neither has Johnny Depp. You know who has? Amber Heard, when she threw a jar/can of mineral…spirits?..directly at his nose.
(I don’t know what the hell he was describing. Mineral spirits? No clue. At first he said jar and then corrected himself to can. It doesn’t sound like it was a plastic bottle.)
There seems to be some equating of Depp being an obnoxious drunken asshole (no argument!) and being a violent abuser. (No remotely credible evidence).
To repeat:
Checked it out. It is not meaningful, in that it is someone who clearly believes everything Heard said, which of course anyone is entitled to do, though I cannot fathom why.
Dude, did you even watch the Ellen Barkin video? Under oath she testifies that he tossed the bottle during an argument with his assistant on the other side of the room. It had nothing to do with her at all. She didn’t even know what they were fighting about. And there were a bunch of other people in the room.
The way you continue to characterize that as domestic abuse is grotesque.
How is it equivocating to clarify that the fact, reported by Barkin herself, is that he did not throw a bottle at her at all, he tossed a bottle in the direction of a group of people she was part of, when he was drunk and fighting with someone who was not her? Those are two completely different things, especially when being offered up as some kind of evidence that he is any kind of violent abuser of the women he has been in relationships with. That is completely invalid.
He was a careless jerk, because someone might have been hit. That doesn’t make him a violent abuser, or anything close. Careless jerks and violent abusers are not equivalent.
Yep, he was.
Okay. I succeeded for months at not getting drawn into this whole toxic stew, and it was a mistake for me to think it was safe to go back into the water. I’m out.
You and me both, man. You and me both.
I’m reminded of this comic for no reason.
Beautiful link. I 
the Oatmeal, but that’s a particularly lovely one.
Serious question: Sara Kruzan was convicted of murder because she killed the man who raped and trafficked her, only to have sentence commuted and eventually almost twenty years later. Do you agree with that, or do you still not understand that mindset?
I think that is defensive violence, not abusive. Just saying.
Not really. She intentionally met up with her abuser to kill him.
To bring it back to the topic at hand - there’s no evidence Depp’s abuse wasn’t a response to Heard’s. Does that make it perfectly ok? Nope. But Heard’s abuse was documented and supported. The worst we’ve heard about Depp was some slamming doors and nasty text messages that weren’t even directed to Heard.
Mineral spirits are a type of industrial solvent, often used as a paint thinner. Usually comes in a metal flask like this:
It is? That’s a surprise to me, a Canadian, and we have a tremendous superiority complex. The USA has its problems but calling the legal system a joke because civil trials sometimes have juries is not a thing I have ever heard expressed.
The fact US civil trials sometimes have juries is obviously not rooted in anti-intellectualism. It’s rooted in the USA’s original loathing of an established nobility, and of course still exists to this day because it’s a Constitutional right.
The average judge may be more unbiased and better able to weigh the facts of a case more logically and legally than the average (vetted) juror, but I believe the reverse is the case with 12 jurors v. 1 judge.
Just gonna leave this here. This whole case is a shit show and both sides clearly used bots to drive the media narrative (one was obviously more successful).
https://old.reddit.com/r/Deuxmoi/comments/v1bljh/list_of_ahjd_abuse_myths_debunked_part_2/