Kyle Rittenhouse - The Truth in 11 Minutes

#926
#926
NEO said:
Not correct.

Calling someone a murderer implies guilt.
Click to expand...

Obviously.

If he is found not guilty in all courts
Click to expand...

In how many courts can he be found not guilty?

and someone still calls him a murderer he can sue and if damages can be proven the court will issue a monetary verdict.
Click to expand...

And how would he be damaged by some random poster on Volnation calling him a murderer?
 
#927
#927
bamawriter said:
Obviously.



In how many courts can he be found not guilty?



And how would he be damaged by some random poster on Volnation calling him a murderer?
Click to expand...

To your last question I cannot personally see how there would be damages but that was not my original comment that you replied to.

I said could.

The only way I could possible see damages is if a thread he was in went viral and he continued even after Kyle is acquitted abd it somehow impacts his career.

Again, not what I said though. I simply said calling someone a murderer is slander if he is proven not guilty. I gave advice as in some other realm this kind of behavior could seriously harm him.

On this specific board? Probably not and slim to none.

As to courts, I suspect he will also be tried in civil court multiple times by multiple people he shot or their families so I can’t say how many times total.

Once for murder and maybe three times in civil.
 
#928
#928
NEO said:
Sean Penn vs Lee Daniels says different.
Click to expand...

Whether or not Sean Penn abused women is an issue of fact. It can either be true or false.

Ventura vs Chris Kyle also.
Click to expand...

Whether or not Jesse Ventura ever disparaged dead servicemen is an issue of fact. It can either be true or false.

Whether or not Kyle Rittenhouse killed someone is an issue of fact. It can either be true or false.

Whether a particular homicide was a murder or self defense is an issue of law. It is not a a question to which the answer is true or false.

Ps. Sad the guy who doesn’t claim to be a lawyer is the one actually posting actual case studies.
Click to expand...

A lawyer would actually understand the case law he's posting.
 
#929
#929
NEO said:
As to courts, I suspect he will also be tried in civil court multiple times by multiple people he shot or their families so I can’t say how many times total.

Once for murder and maybe three times in civil.
Click to expand...

Civil courts do not address issues of guilt.

OJ was not found guilty in civil court.
 
#930
#930
bamawriter said:
Whether or not Sean Penn abused women is an issue of fact. It can either be true or false.



Whether or not Jesse Ventura ever disparaged dead servicemen is an issue of fact. It can either be true or false.

Whether or not Kyle Rittenhouse killed someone is an issue of fact. It can either be true or false.

Whether a particular homicide was a murder or self defense is an issue of law. It is not a a question to which the answer is true or false.



A lawyer would actually understand the case law he's posting.
Click to expand...

Killed and murder are not the same thing.

You know this.

Webster defines murder as unlawfully killing someone. The minute they are found not guilty the actions are deemed lawful and the term murder no longer applies.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Rickyvol77
#932
#932
NEO said:
Killed and murder are not the same thing.

You know this.
Click to expand...

Of course. You just quoted me saying as much.

Webster defines murder as unlawfully killing someone. The minute they are found not guilty the actions are deemed lawful and the term murder no longer applies.
Click to expand...

That is completely incorrect. The actions are not deemed lawful. A not guilty verdict only means that the state failed to carry its burden. That's it.

If a not guilty verdict were to actually cause a legal determination that the act was lawful, then why was OJ's civil trial not tossed out as soon as it was filed? By your argument, the law said he didn't do anything unlawful.
 
#934
#934
bamawriter said:
Of course. You just quoted me saying as much.



That is completely incorrect. The actions are not deemed lawful. A not guilty verdict only means that the state failed to carry its burden. That's it.

If a not guilty verdict were to actually cause a legal determination that the act was lawful, then why was OJ's civil trial not tossed out as soon as it was filed? By your argument, the law said he didn't do anything unlawful.
Click to expand...

Two completely different court systems and civil court does not require beyond a shadow of a doubt type proof.

Hence, he was found not guilty in one court but liable in the other.

Comedians are also very hard to sue due to the nature of their business not being taken seriously.

But when a judge or just states not guilty( state failed to meet burden of proof) at that point the unlawful part became lawful and deemed within the defendants rights.

So Kyle will be deemed as acting in self defense if he is acquitted.
 
#935
#935
bamawriter said:
"Responsible," but close enough.

Either way, "responsible" does not equal "guilty."
Click to expand...

He was deemed “liable” as they found him personally responsible for the deaths……since we are seriously playing semantics here.
 
#939
#939
NEO said:
Sean Penn vs Lee Daniels says different.

Ventura vs Chris Kyle also.

Ps. Sad the guy who doesn’t claim to be a lawyer is the one actually posting actual case studies.
Click to expand...

Publishing a false statement of fact that results in damages to another party is a tort. Nobody is contesting that. But your application to these facts is rancid.

First, the statement is an opinion. One does not have to expressly state that a statement is an opinion if it would reasonably be understood as an opinion. Courts have and would bend over backwards to dismiss any claim over OP’s statement at summary judgment because to punish someone for speech that only the shriekiest of Karens would fail to understand as an opinion, simply because it doesn’t contain certain magic words, would have too much of a stifling effect on speech. Here, it’s an opinion because there is evidence of an act that is subject to interpretation. Ones opinion of murder does not have to conform to any specific state’s law, as we’ve seen here when other recent cases resulted in a conviction that people refused to accept. The opposite also holds true. OP does not have to choose between accepting the verdict or paying defendant for his opinion.

Second, even if that weren’t the case (it is) a jury verdict finding Rittenhouse not guilty is not controlling on a civil jury. Rittenhouse could present an acquittal as evidence that the statement was false, but it would not be controlling on the jury and the defendant could absolutely relitigate Rittenhouse’s guilt with available evidence and the civil jury could come to a different conclusion. (Which is essentially why the statement is an opinion in the first place.)

Third, your cases do not support your statements. Sure, they establish that defamation law exists, generally but, again, nobody is saying that’s wrong. The facts are absolutely nothing like what you’re saying. Jesse Ventura was never acquitted of being punched in the face by Chris Kyles 🙄 and Kyles’s defamatory statement could not be understood as an opinion because it was a detailed description of an event that never even took place. Likewise, Sean Penn was never even accused of domestic assault, much less caught on video punching any of his wives (also it was never litigated and was settled with a charitable donation and a public apology).

Just saying that he could be sued for that is not the dumbest thing I’ve read on here, but it’s pretty asinine and arguing about it on and on and thumping your chest over some case law that doesn’t even support what you’re saying brings it into contention.
 
Last edited:
  • Like
Reactions: Septic and bamawriter
#944
#944
RockyTop85 said:
Publishing a false statement of fact that results in damages to another party is a tort. Nobody is contesting that. But your application to these facts is rancid.

First, the statement is an opinion. One does not have to expressly state that a statement is an opinion if it would reasonably be understood as an opinion. Courts have and would bend over backwards to dismiss any claim over OP’s statement at summary judgment because to punish someone for speech that only the shriekiest of Karens would fail to understand as an opinion, simply because it doesn’t contain certain magic words, would have too much of a stifling effect on speech. Here, it’s an opinion because there is evidence of an act that is subject to interpretation. Ones opinion of murder does not have to conform to any specific state’s law, as we’ve seen here when other recent cases resulted in a conviction that people refused to accept. The opposite also holds true. OP does not have to choose between accepting the verdict or paying defendant for his opinion.

Second, even if that weren’t the case (it is) a jury verdict finding Rittenhouse not guilty is not controlling on a civil jury. Rittenhouse could present an acquittal as evidence that the statement was false, but it would not be controlling on the jury and the defendant could absolutely relitigate Rittenhouse’s guilt with available evidence and the civil jury could come to a different conclusion. (Which is essentially why the statement is an opinion in the first place.)

Third, your cases do not support your statements. Sure, they establish that defamation law exists, generally but, again, nobody is saying that’s wrong. The facts are absolutely nothing like what you’re saying. Jesse Ventura was never acquitted of being punched in the face by Chris Kyles 🙄 and Kyles’s defamatory statement could not be understood as an opinion because it was a detailed description of an event that never even took place. Likewise, Sean Penn was never even accused of domestic assault, much less caught on video punching any of his wives (also it was never litigated and was settled with a charitable donation and a public apology).

Just saying that he could be sued for that is not the dumbest thing I’ve read on here, but it’s pretty asinine and arguing about it on and on and thumping your chest over some case law that doesn’t even support what you’re saying brings it into contention.
Click to expand...

Settled means he was going to lose in court and knew it. Any lawyer worth a grain of salt would know this.

And yes calling someone a murderer that isn’t is slander. Whether they can prove damages though is another situation.

And I am simply responding to you two. Stop responding to me and this ends.

Oh and lastly, your first statement is all I ever said but you two morons couldn’t seem to get that so you kept going on and on. I also said that damages on this specific site would be hard to prove but was giving him advice in general. You clearly missed all of this but wanted to just keep dragging it out.
 
#945
#945
NEO said:
Settled means he was going to lose in court and knew it. Any lawyer worth a grain of salt would know this.
Click to expand...

Laughably wrong and also somehow still completely missing the point.

And yes calling someone a murderer that isn’t is slander. Whether they can prove damages though is another situation.
Click to expand...

Wrong. Having an opinion about a matter of public concern is not defamatory.

Oh and lastly, your first statement is all I ever said but you two morons couldn’t seem to get that so you kept going on and on. I also said that damages on this specific site would be hard to prove but was giving him advice in general. You clearly missed all of this but wanted to just keep dragging it out.
Click to expand...

Wrong. You said that particular a statement about Kyle Rittenhouse was defamatory. It’s not, because it states an opinion about a matter of public concern.

And I am simply responding to you two. Stop responding to me and this ends.
Click to expand...

Time to replace the part in your imagination that has made you think that I care whether or not you stop wallowing in your own ignorance. It’s broken.
 
#946
#946
RockyTop85 said:
Laughably wrong and also somehow still missing the point.



Wrong. Having an opinion about a matter of public concern is not defamatory.



Wrong. The discussion is about whether that particular statement is defamatory about Kyle Rittenhouse. It’s not because it states an opinion about a matter of public concern.



Time to replace whatever part in your imagination has made you think that I care whether you stop wallowing in your own ignorance. It’s broken.
Click to expand...

For someone who doesn’t care you seem to keep dragging this on and taking the time to post lengthy responses.

Hopefully you are done now.

I have dealt with two actual slander cases recently and both lost and are paying out heavily now and over much less but your career as an ambulance chaser makes you the go to and bamawriter has a job…..

Again, I am done here.
 
#947
#947
NEO said:
For someone who doesn’t care you seem to keep dragging this on and taking the time to post lengthy responses.

Hopefully you are done now.

I have dealt with two actual slander cases recently and both lost and are paying out heavily now and over much less but your career as an ambulance chaser makes you the go to and bamawriter has a job…..

Again, I am done here.
Click to expand...

I said I don’t care if you continue to display your ignorance, I didn’t say it wasn’t entertaining enough to keep egging you on.

I truly do not care what you’ve “dealt with” because you’ve already made clear that you can’t distinguish between fact patterns.

You have conclusively proven that you know defamation law exists. That’s solid sixth grade level information and definitely raised my estimation of your fund of knowledge.

But hey, instead of begging me to stop making fun of you for arguing about something where you were flat ass wrong, maybe you could play the long game. Write to the Supreme Court of the United States let them know that, according to your reading of People Magazine 2015 article about Sean Penn v. Lee Daniels, Greenbelt v. Bressler was wrongly decided and that circuit courts have been misapplying Milkovich v. Lorain for the last three decades. I bet they’ll take that up along with MyPillow’s election lawsuit and then you’ll be right and I’ll be wrong.

Best of luck.
 
  • Like
Reactions: bamawriter
New posts
You must log in or register to reply here.
Advertisement

Back
Top