Convington High victims sue CNN for OVER $250M + Wash Post for $250M + others

[John Chips]

Personally, I see no way they can win those law suits. But I feel some monetary compensation would be right, but not this excessive.

[Hilhen7]

So should we also expect the central park 5 to sue Trump?

[Ashrynn]

You said that you believe Fox is registered as an entertainment company, and CNN is licensed as a news organization, that was your claim.

"See, I've been told CNN is labeled as a news organization and not an entertainment company, such as Fox. There is a reason why this matters in this case. "

That's something I really want to see. People keep making this claim, and I honestly want to know if it's true. It seems like that would be publicly-available information, and you did say it... so, did you actually check to make sure you were correct?

I am supporting equality under the law, you saying "Nuh UHH!!!!" is not a refutation.

I await your evidence on those licenses.

1. So Fox News is a News Organization the same as CNN? Honestly, I had been under the impression that they weren't as they'd claimed to be entertainment in the past. Of course you shouldn't omit the fact that it was YOU who first brought up Fox News and we were discussing something of Fox needing to pay out billions to Clinton/Obama... and how that doesn't relate at all to the Covington Kids. Which I also made clear.

2. If you see a claim. And you want to know if it's true - Look it up yourself.

3. It's a good thing I repeatedly said more than "Nuh UHH!!!!!" as you alluded to with my wall of text. People are free to look up what we've both said. And you can address what I'm saying, the core of my argument, or you can keep up the pivoting. But please explain what I said beyond NUH UHHH! so I know I'm not actually dealing with someone suffering a learning disability.

Are you done with the pivots now? Cause this is actually getting us nowhere and you're sort of just showing you can't really keep up AN argument so you're doing the spaghetti approach of throwing whatever you can and seeing what you can make stick.

If you can't keep up with our discussion I'll move on. I've already taken your original point and compared it to your pivot. It's not consistent and it's not dealing with any reality that we live in. You also believe multi-million $ news organization has the same resources and burden of proof that an average private citizen would.

Now you're trying to say "GOTCHA DUDE!"

Cool beans.

I await your evidence on ANY of your claims. Or some legal precedence that backs up your claims. Or anything other than some silly opinion you have on how you think our legal system should run.

Otherwise, we done.

[Machismo]

1. So Fox News is a News Organization the same as CNN? Honestly, I had been under the impression that they weren't as they'd claimed to be entertainment in the past. Of course you shouldn't omit the fact that it was YOU who first brought up Fox News and we were discussing something of Fox needing to pay out billions to Clinton/Obama... and how that doesn't relate at all to the Covington Kids. Which I also made clear.

2. If you see a claim. And you want to know if it's true - Look it up yourself.

3. It's a good thing I repeatedly said more than "Nuh UHH!!!!!" as you alluded to with my wall of text. People are free to look up what we've both said. And you can address what I'm saying, the core of my argument, or you can keep up the pivoting. But please explain what I said beyond NUH UHHH! so I know I'm not actually dealing with someone suffering a learning disability.

Are you done with the pivots now? Cause this is actually getting us nowhere and you're sort of just showing you can't really keep up AN argument so you're doing the spaghetti approach of throwing whatever you can and seeing what you can make stick.

If you can't keep up with our discussion I'll move on. I've already taken your original point and compared it to your pivot. It's not consistent and it's not dealing with any reality that we live in. You also believe multi-million $ news organization has the same resources and burden of proof that an average private citizen would.

Now you're trying to say "GOTCHA DUDE!"

Cool beans.

I await your evidence on ANY of your claims. Or some legal precedence that backs up your claims. Or anything other than some silly opinion you have on how you think our legal system should run.

Otherwise, we done.

I did not make that claim, you made the claim, and I wanted you to back it up with evidence. I honestly don't know how they are licensed/organized. That is a claim that you made, and I requested you back it up. Once again, it seems odd that you would make a claim, without first verifying it via publicly-available information.

I'm not sure why you are trying to turn that one around on me, you said it.

You keep saying we are done, but I'm not sure you really mean it.

[John Chips]

That's Machismo. When he is out of bullshit to spout, you get the lines "You seem to not realize that you failed. Maybe next time, sport." or "Thanks for agreeing with me." when no such thing happened. It's just that he can't debate.

A two second Google shows the answer, Machismo has done it already and it shows you are right.

[Machismo]

That's Machismo. When he is out of bullshit to spout, you get the lines "You seem to not realize that you failed. Maybe next time, sport." or "Thanks for agreeing with me." when no such thing happened. It's just that he can't debate.

A two second Google shows the answer, Machismo has done it already and it shows you are right.

Really, I don't actually know, so I would love to see the link you got that information from.

There was a long-ago lawsuit from a Fox affiliate in Florida, where they argued that it was acceptable for a news site to lie, but the rest seems a bit like gossip.

[Ashrynn]

I did not make that claim, you made the claim, and I wanted you to back it up with evidence. I honestly don't know how they are licensed/organized. That is a claim that you made, and I requested you back it up. Once again, it seems odd that you would make a claim, without first verifying it via publicly-available information.

I'm not sure why you are trying to turn that one around on me, you said it.

You keep saying we are done, but I'm not sure you really mean it.

Machismo - I said labelled, not licensed. As in I just described that Fox has labeled themselves as an entertainment company to avoid litigation(as I understand, but I could be wrong) and CNN has never done so. And again you brought up Fox News in a way I found unrelated to the situation which was unrelated. So are we past this? Or will you run on for the next several pages about how you 'got me' since you can't defend your positions very well?

How is this hard for you to understand? You brought up Fox first, you now put words in my mouth. I smell the gasoline coming for the strawman!!

And your whole "I just want you to back it up" - No, you want to put words into my mouth and pivot to something you believe you can win on. Piss off with that and get back on topic.

Let me explain again, since you do need it: I've deconstructed what you've said in full. I showed how you changed your position. And I've actively called out your attempts at pivoting and straw-manning. We haven't moved past this point as you just continue to act the same way. You won't provide a shred of evidence either. So we're done.

The moment you fell back on your ideas and pivoted you just lost the plot. Argument was over pages ago, I'm just explaining what happened.

[Machismo]

Machismo - I said labelled, not licensed. As in I just described that Fox has labeled themselves as an entertainment company to avoid litigation(as I understand, but I could be wrong) and CNN has never done so. And again you brought up Fox News in a way I found unrelated to the situation which was unrelated. So are we past this? Or will you run on for the next several pages about how you 'got me' since you can't defend your positions very well?

How is this hard for you to understand? You brought up Fox first, you now put words in my mouth. I smell the gasoline coming for the strawman!!

And your whole "I just want you to back it up" - No, you want to put words into my mouth and pivot to something you believe you can win on. Piss off with that and get back on topic.

Let me explain again, since you do need it: I've deconstructed what you've said in full. I showed how you changed your position. And I've actively called out your attempts at pivoting and straw-manning. We haven't moved past this point as you just continue to act the same way. You won't provide a shred of evidence either. So we're done.

The moment you fell back on your ideas and pivoted you just lost the plot. Argument was over pages ago, I'm just explaining what happened.

It's literally called Fox News Channel. Their website is foxnews.com.

You made that direct claim about their status, but I cannot find where you actually got it from. So, it would appear they are labeling (as in actual names) themselves as a news source. Now, if you have contradictory evidence to back up your claim, let's see it.

Oh, I do want you to back it up, because it would appear that you tried to make a claim without actually checking and verifying it through publicly-available means.

What you have done, is show that you are capable of doing the exact same thing CNN did.

[Ashrynn]

It's literally called Fox News Channel. Their website is foxnews.com.

You made that direct claim about their status, but I cannot find where you actually got it from. So, it would appear they are labeling (as in actual names) themselves as a news source. Now, if you have contradictory evidence to back up your claim, let's see it.

Oh, I do want you to back it up, because it would appear that you tried to make a claim without actually checking and verifying it through publicly-available means.

What you have done, is show that you are capable of doing the exact same thing CNN did.

Uh-huhh!!!

Oh wow... Except you left out the part where I went onto my tv network night after night for weeks and wrote multiple articles about how Fox isn't news. Even when presented with facts(which you haven't done either, but let's say I did have them) I just continued to run with my story.

So was this the final pivot? You didn't prove a damn thing.

Still done.

[Machismo]

Uh-huhh!!!

Oh wow... Except you left out the part where I went onto my tv network night after night for weeks and wrote multiple articles about how Fox isn't news. Even when presented with facts(which you haven't done either, but let's say I did have them) I just continued to run with my story.

So was this the final pivot? You didn't prove a damn thing.

Still done.

I'm questioning a claim you made, and one you have clearly not researched. Heck, you may be right, I don't know. But, you made the claim, and it seems odd for you to be so unwilling to not do your due diligence, and research it beforehand. After all, that is what you people want to use the government to punish CNN for, yet think that you being held to that standard is a ludicrous thought.

Now, I'm guessing that since our conversation started, you did try to look into it, and it's not that easy to track down all that information, is it?

[Rysthruun]

I mean, that’s not really much different. My point was, it was the inside guy spilling the story that locked it down. The damning part in a trial on food safety is that they knew the food wasn’t safe.

In this case, the burden of proof has not been met on slander. I’ve never taken the position that CNN is perfect, I hadn’t seen an avalanche of litigation involving them though. I don’t doubt they cut corners, but I never saw the malice that’s required for this kind of thing to get off the ground. CNN is not the only place I go to for news. I tend to hop around a variety of places to get different takes on stories. I remember CNN being among the first to correct the story and also published the young man’s response to it all.

No, that's also incorrect, in regards to food safety. Many coffee chains and fast food restaurants still serve coffee at the same temperature McDonalds did or well above the burning temperature specified in the litigation. Starbucks and Dunkin Doughnuts both do, and I believe this was covered in the HBO documentary. They just haven't been sued enough. Ironic.

It wasn't the QC guy "spilling the beans" any elementary school nurse could likely tell you what temperature you are going to experience a burn at. It was the legal team arguing the case that showcased the recklessness in that combined decision (Messaging between corporate and QC discovery) and the complete disregard for consumer safety after X amount of burns had happened.
That despite the amount of money the company had already paid out, they were not willing to consider a change. That's what prompted the enormous punitive damage sum by the jury, to coerce the company to change it's policy.

In this case, the burden of proof is libel.

https://legal-dictionary.thefreedictionary.com/libel

Any news venue from CNN to the enquirer would definitely be granted a grace period to "correct" their reporting. However, this continued onwards past the full video release. To CNN's credit, it wasn't their 'journalists' producing content, it was on the commentary panels they aired who did nothing but condemn this minor and his community and which re-played on 24 hour segments. I am unable to find a retraction by CNN in print or video, maybe you can? The closest thing to it was a segment by Chris Cuomo where HE "doesn't blame the kids" but the staff, parents, other kids were to blame more or less through not walking away while waiting for their bus. Again, no official retraction from CNN that the minor wasn't a "racist teen confronting a native American man in his maga hat". Instead of retracting, they went on to talk about how this is all Trumps fault. A point that Linwood will point to along with their history especially during the 2016 and post 2016 news cycle as being "malicious".

I could be wrong, but I think I read that 81 different libel lawsuits are going to be filed or maybe that's subpoenas for Trumps people? Either case, a lot of people are going to be sued over this. The nail in the coffin for the larger media venues is going to be the smaller fish without the huge corporate legal teams being sued, whose testimony where they made threats against these minors will likely be used in the larger testimonial bodies against venues like CNN, Wapo, etc. The smaller fish aren't journalists, these were people making assumptions based off their reporting and like I said it will be damning. They are getting their news from these sources and the likely hood is certain that their testimony will be used in larger lawsuits to prove extent of damages in both punitive and restitutive purposes. As Uncle Ben used to say.....

[Ashrynn]

I'm questioning a claim you made, and one you have clearly not researched. Heck, you may be right, I don't know. But, you made the claim, and it seems odd for you to be so unwilling to not do your due diligence, and research it beforehand. After all, that is what you people want to use the government to punish CNN for, yet think that you being held to that standard is a ludicrous thought.

Now, I'm guessing that since our conversation started, you did try to look into it, and it's not that easy to track down all that information, is it?

Oh my god - You finally made a new argument to me: THANK YOU

1. Dude. No. You brought up Fox, I stated what I thought. I could be wrong, because I didn't do the same level of research into it. Because we're in a thread about Covington, CNN and WaPo. Oh my geez! Owned so hard.

2. Glad we agree your Fox pivot has nothing to do with CNN/WaPo

3. I don't want the government to punish them. They are being sued, they are are not having the government run in and arrest them. You're being an idiot now.

4. Again - I don't have the same resources as CNN. You're comparing a random person online that has to source articles by searching them on google/youtube, with a major multi-million $$ news organization. It's a stupid comparison and I'm not going to pretend this is an intelligent argument because it is not. Especially when I already addressed this pages ago. Do you not remember?

5. I AM NOT CNN OR WA-PO AND I AM NOT PAID TO DO RESEARCH AND REPORT - I capslocked it since I hope this sticks since you think that a rando using google is able to find the same info.

6. No more pivots.

If you want to go back and defend your positions than do so. If you want to pivot and take shots over things you brought up... Keep it up. I think your just proving my point that your arguments are crap, you talk out your keester and you keep attempting to strawman.

Again we are still done. You still aren't able to defend your position and you keep making the same debunked arguments.

My original position? This is cut and dry defamation. It won't go through as WaPo and CNN will settle and let their insurance payout whatever is the least they can agree to. If you can provide me with some reasons as to why that won't happen go for it. Here let me give you a recap of the last time:
- If they get sued it could mean EVERYONE gets sued! Nobody wants that right!!?
I challenge
- EVERYONE SHOULD GET SUED! THATS EQUALITY
I challenge
- YOU DONT SUPPORT EQUALITY
I challenge
- Well you just want to government to come in and punish these companies!
/clap

Dude, you're kind of being ridiculous. I stated my opinion from the start and it has not changed. If you have an actual response, do it. But the pivoting and strawmanning is silly given how many times you did it in one thread.

[Rhaide]

A hit job is only a hot job if it was fake and they knew it was fake. Story was corroborated at the time. It’s only hindsight and your natural predisposition to call bullshit on any story concerning racism that has you saying otherwise. Again, I followed this story from the start and exactly zero news organizations offered a different take on this story. It was open and shut until the following day.

- - - Updated - - -




Nobody called bullshit with any evidence. No news organizations did at all. They ran a story that looked good at the time and then adjusted literally the second new evodence came around.

They knew that reporting it prematurely would lead to harassment of these kids. They knew that and they did it anyway. Or do you think they just legitimately had no idea that radical psychopaths would jump on these kids the moment they had an excuse?

[Rysthruun]

1. Well yes, we are done here. I did post a wall of text just restating what you and I had been discussing and why it was pointless given your pivots and attempts to try and strawman me(as you've done to me in the past and others in this thread, sometimes a 35k+ posting history hurts). I'll try again since I am starting to sense some issues with comprehension.

2. No. You are not.

3. You provide evidence first. I actually linked to articles originally as I have done many times. You are the one continuing to talk out your keester. First about how this would damn everyone, now about how it SHOULD damn everyone and now just silly banter.

4. So we're pivoting to Trump now? Stay on topic.

5. I did debunk it. I explained the basic reasons why the defamation would go through. I explained why it would not then subject private citizens to massive lawsuits. And I showed how you pivoted to it just being how the system SHOULD be run if we want fairness.

6. Kids. Kids. Kids. They are kids who were told to stay there and they acted appropriately. But again, if someone stands out in public and you film them - fine. You don't get to then say they are public figures and smear... which is what happened.

7. Excuse me? So random people on Twitter and Youtube are indeed better at doing basic groundwork than CNN? You keep saying it. Because all of the facts were available. CNN didn't bother to get a statement from anyone other than Phillips. It's a complete abdication of journalistic standards and shows a pretty clear lack of integrity. But I keep saying - Run this idiotic defense so everyone can partake in the public mocking of a news organization that says randos online are better equipped to get he facts.

Still haven't said anything new, still done and of course you're still wrong !


-=-=-=-

Since I know you avoid reading:



Just for more context as this person kind of hit the nail on the head.

Thank you! I'm glad someone has some sense here! Get your popcorn ready

[Darththeo]

Repeating "they did their job, they did their job!" doesn't make it true. They didn't.
All of this could've been avoided with a little bit of research and aiming for the truth, as video footage was fully available and destroyed this narrative of the "racist maga kids". But they cared more for the flashy fake news than the boring uncomfortable truth, and that's not journalism, that's activism.

Fake news indeed.

Because it is obvious to anyone who doesn't have an axe to grind with the media that they literally did their job. There are A LOT of news story that can be avoided with a "little bit of research." Do you really want to open that pandora's box?

They received numerous reports on the event ... they had no reason to doubt that. What you wanted is them to come forward only with absolute certainty and that isn't how the news works. Florida, for example, literally has a law that requires media to be given information immediately when a criminal event occurs, regardless of how little is known ... hence the Florida Man meme.

The got reports they didn't have reason to doubt, they had video that appeared to match the report and then they reported it ... literally their job. What you want is them to go farther than the job requires ... either you don't understand how media works or worse don't care.

[Rysthruun]

They knew that reporting it prematurely would lead to harassment of these kids. They knew that and they did it anyway. Or do you think they just legitimately had no idea that radical psychopaths would jump on these kids the moment they had an excuse?

In court, it's not about what you know, but what you can prove

- - - Updated - - -

You are still being a hypocrite. No amount of bullshit you spew is going to change that. You can call for ethics all you like. But, once you get the government involved, you want to FORCE ethics ont others... all while refusing to do the same for yourself. You keep literally pointing out your hypocrisy, over and over again.

So, let me know when you want to restrict your own speech.

- - - Updated - - -



And do you agree with the results of such lawsuits? I sure as shit don't. It's astounding how many people around here are suddenly in favor of punishing people for speech.

I feel like that's a cheap shot towards me but I will entertain it. CNN had ample opportunity to turn back on their reporting, commentary panels, and they didn't. Even after the full video was released, they pretended like nothing happened and that these white teenagers from a catholic school were the next hells angels. /eyeroll

- - - Updated - - -

Because it is obvious to anyone who doesn't have an axe to grind with the media that they literally did their job. There are A LOT of news story that can be avoided with a "little bit of research." Do you really want to open that pandora's box?

They received numerous reports on the event ... they had no reason to doubt that. What you wanted is them to come forward only with absolute certainty and that isn't how the news works. Florida, for example, literally has a law that requires media to be given information immediately when a criminal event occurs, regardless of how little is known ... hence the Florida Man meme.

The got reports they didn't have reason to doubt, they had video that appeared to match the report and then they reported it ... literally their job. What you want is them to go farther than the job requires ... either you don't understand how media works or worse don't care.

Their is also the important fact that the same twitter account they pulled the "cherry pick" from also had the full video in its commentary within 8 posts and yet they either


a.) Refused to air it

B.) acknowledge it

C.)chose to ignore it




D.)

[Machismo]

In court, it's not about what you know, but what you can prove

- - - Updated - - -



I feel like that's a cheap shot towards me but I will entertain it. CNN had ample opportunity to turn back on their reporting, commentary panels, and they didn't. Even after the full video was released, they pretended like nothing happened and that these white teenagers from a catholic school were the next hells angels. /eyeroll

- - - Updated - - -



Their is also the important fact that the same twitter account they pulled the "cherry pick" from also had the full video in its commentary within 8 posts and yet they either


a.) Refused to air it

B.) acknowledge it

C.)chose to ignore it




D.)

That's the claim, but people are having a difficult time actually proving it.

- - - Updated - - -

Oh my god - You finally made a new argument to me: THANK YOU

1. Dude. No. You brought up Fox, I stated what I thought. I could be wrong, because I didn't do the same level of research into it. Because we're in a thread about Covington, CNN and WaPo. Oh my geez! Owned so hard.

2. Glad we agree your Fox pivot has nothing to do with CNN/WaPo

3. I don't want the government to punish them. They are being sued, they are are not having the government run in and arrest them. You're being an idiot now.

4. Again - I don't have the same resources as CNN. You're comparing a random person online that has to source articles by searching them on google/youtube, with a major multi-million $$ news organization. It's a stupid comparison and I'm not going to pretend this is an intelligent argument because it is not. Especially when I already addressed this pages ago. Do you not remember?

5. I AM NOT CNN OR WA-PO AND I AM NOT PAID TO DO RESEARCH AND REPORT - I capslocked it since I hope this sticks since you think that a rando using google is able to find the same info.

6. No more pivots.

If you want to go back and defend your positions than do so. If you want to pivot and take shots over things you brought up... Keep it up. I think your just proving my point that your arguments are crap, you talk out your keester and you keep attempting to strawman.

Again we are still done. You still aren't able to defend your position and you keep making the same debunked arguments.

My original position? This is cut and dry defamation. It won't go through as WaPo and CNN will settle and let their insurance payout whatever is the least they can agree to. If you can provide me with some reasons as to why that won't happen go for it. Here let me give you a recap of the last time:
- If they get sued it could mean EVERYONE gets sued! Nobody wants that right!!?
I challenge
- EVERYONE SHOULD GET SUED! THATS EQUALITY
I challenge
- YOU DONT SUPPORT EQUALITY
I challenge
- Well you just want to government to come in and punish these companies!
/clap

Dude, you're kind of being ridiculous. I stated my opinion from the start and it has not changed. If you have an actual response, do it. But the pivoting and strawmanning is silly given how many times you did it in one thread.

You made a claim about Fox and CNN, and I questioned the veracity. You still refuse to research a claim, and back up the narrative you already pushed. Let me know when the irony finally gets to you.

They are not having the government go in and arrest them, they want the government to go in and forcibly take hundreds of millions of dollars from them. I'd say that's punishment.

You spoke about publicly-available information, you brought it up. Yet, here you are, unwilling to find information that is publicly-available to back up your own narrative.

Now you are just calling for a double standard, demonstrating your hypocrisy.

Let me know when you can back up your claims about CNN and Fox News.

[Orbitus]

oh and i am the one smoking shit. a'right then.

Yes. If you are posting this horseshit, then yes, you are fucking high.

- - - Updated - - -

You don't think assaulting a 81 year old man for wearing a hat is on the extreme side?

Funny, I have seen worse from right wingers, aka killing people with cars, and murdering people in synagogues, and sending bombs to dozens of people. Do you see me saying extreme right? Nope, I call them typical Trump supporters. Because that is what they are. Someone assaulting a moronic 81 year old with a MAGAt hat, isn't typical of the left. But since most terrorism comes from right wingers, the attacks I mentioned are quite common from the right wing.

- - - Updated - - -

Nah you're indoctrinated. Your link at the bottom of your posts are giving me second hand embarrassment. You're absolutely obsessed.

So, you don't like quoted and fact based signature that shows that Trump is racist and sexist and a fucking douchenozzle? They aren't embarrassing me at all. It just shows how fucking gullible you are and how much you go out of your way to ignore reality and facts. And you say I am the one that is indoctrinated?

[Ashrynn]

That's the claim, but people are having a difficult time actually proving it.

- - - Updated - - -



You made a claim about Fox and CNN, and I questioned the veracity. You still refuse to research a claim, and back up the narrative you already pushed. Let me know when the irony finally gets to you.

They are not having the government go in and arrest them, they want the government to go in and forcibly take hundreds of millions of dollars from them. I'd say that's punishment.

You spoke about publicly-available information, you brought it up. Yet, here you are, unwilling to find information that is publicly-available to back up your own narrative.

Now you are just calling for a double standard, demonstrating your hypocrisy.

Let me know when you can back up your claims about CNN and Fox News.

1. You brought up Fox News. I responded to your claim about Fox News. I still do not understand why you thought bringing up Fox News and how they could be sued by Obama/Clinton is the same. And again, you clearly are just going to run around screaming 'liar liar' because you can't defend your positions.

2. It's called a lawsuit. It's a civil suit from what I understand. You're doing your best and failing spectacularly. If they lose the suit that is the punishment. If they refuse to pay and then the government gets involved that is a totally separate matter.

3. What is my narrative again? Because you seem to be the one so obsessed with Fox News and I really could care less other than to point out the obvious pivot.

4. If we were comparing people, privately, sure. We are not. It's not. You fail still in trying to equate the two.

5. Let me know when you are capable of defending our positions as this is cute and adorable, but not at all engaging.

Still done. You still talk out your keester.

[Deadite]

Funny, I have seen worse from right wingers, aka killing people with cars, and murdering people in synagogues, and sending bombs to dozens of people. Do you see me saying extreme right? Nope, I call them typical Trump supporters. Because that is what they are. Someone assaulting a moronic 81 year old with a MAGAt hat, isn't typical of the left. But since most terrorism comes from right wingers, the attacks I mentioned are quite common from the right wing.

Yeah that octogenarian was just asking for it by the way he was dressed..... Dude you are the extreme left. Thinking some old guy wearing a hat and some nutter running people over are all the same. Absolute lunatic. Why do i get the impression you think people wearing a hat are enemy combatants.