Kyle Rittenhouse - The Truth in 11 Minutes

#987
#987
Shooting victim says He was Pointing His Gun at Rittenhouse

KENOSHA, Wis. — A protester and volunteer medic wounded on the streets of Kenosha by Kyle Rittenhouse testified Monday that he was pointing his own gun toward the rifle-toting Rittenhouse — unintentionally, he said — when the young man shot him.

Gaige Grosskreutz, the third and final man gunned down by Rittenhouse during a night of turbulent racial-justice protests in the summer of 2020, took the stand at Rittenhouse’s murder trial and recounted how he drew his own pistol after the bloodshed started.

Shooting victim says he was pointing his gun at Rittenhouse
 
#988
#988
Anyone posted the numerous threats made against the jury on social media? Interesting what violates TOS and what doesn't. No case should be influenced by threats of violence against jurors for any side. I guess threats of violence are okay if it's at a courthouse and not a school board meeting. I'm sure the FBI is monitoring the situation closely.
 
  • Like
Reactions: MemphisVol77, Vol737, SpaceCoastVol and 2 others
#989
#989
NEO said:
You clearly missed the part where I said in here specifically it would be hard to prove any damages therefore no case but in the real word yes you can be sued for calling someone a murderer if they can show it caused damages and was proven false.

Sorry you can’t grasp this. It is a fact though.

And egging someone on is what a child would try to do when the other side clearly says they disagree and are moving on. Again, I am done. Please mature and move on also.
Click to expand...
A child would also say they are moving on and then keep responding with withering stupidity.

This isn’t about damages. Literally nothing in any of my posts could be understood to be about damages except by a person who doesn’t understand what my posts are about.

The post is not actionable because it is not a statement of fact. It’s an opinion.

Sorry you hate the first amendment and think people have to use magic language to state an opinion.
 
#990
#990
hog88 said:
This kid was always destined to be a ditch digger.
Click to expand...

If you are speaking of Rittenhouse, why so? I dont know much about his background but based on the videos, he seemed to have pretty good presence of mind under pressure and good trigger control. I agree though he is not likely to get a job in tech tho lol
 
  • Like
Reactions: Carl Pickens
#991
#991
Electric Orange said:
Anyone posted the numerous threats made against the jury on social media? Interesting what violates TOS and what doesn't. No case should be influenced by threats of violence against jurors for any side. I guess threats of violence are okay if it's at a courthouse and not a school board meeting. I'm sure the FBI is monitoring the situation closely.
Click to expand...
I am hearing the fbi is busy looking for ashley biden's diary.
 
  • Like
Reactions: red butler, InVOLuntary, davethevol and 4 others
#995
#995
RockyTop85 said:
A child would also say they are moving on and then keep responding with withering stupidity.

This isn’t about damages. Literally nothing in any of my posts could be understood to be about damages except by a person who doesn’t understand what my posts are about.

The post is not actionable because it is not a statement of fact. It’s an opinion.

Sorry you hate the first amendment and think people have to use magic language to state an opinion.
Click to expand...

We disagree and you have literally taken everything I said out of context which is what you do. Also, any lawyer worth anything would know you can still be sued over a statement of opinion and it does not give you immunity.

Again, let it go. I am moving on. Have a good one!
 
  • Like
Reactions: InVOLuntary and StarRaider
#996
#996
NEO said:
Also, any lawyer worth anything would know you can still be sued over a statement of opinion and it does not give you immunity.
Click to expand...

But not in this instance.

It is true that you can't couch any and all statements as opinion and assume you're immune from a tort claim. But for an opinion to be defamatory it must be able to be interpreted as a false statement of fact by a reasonable reader/listener. If I call someone a murderer when that person has not killed anyone, I cannot claim that it's a statement of opinion and think that will suffice. A reasonable person could assume that the subject of my statement killed another person.

But, Kyle Rittenhouse actually committed two instances of homicide. That is undisputed fact. To call him a murderer is a valid opinion that cannot be interpreted as a statement of fact when no such fact exists. The implication at the heart of the opinion is a fact. Any statement as to the lawfulness of the fact can only be an opinion and nothing more.

If the jury acquits (as it appears they should) it would not magically cause the opinion to become defamatory. A verdict does not create or alter a fact. If he's acquitted of murder it does not make the statement "He's a murderer" a falsehood. If that were true, then no one would ever be able to publicly question, criticize, or condemn a jury verdict. That is such a massive stifling of free speech that no one in his right mind could possibly be in favor of it.
 
#997
#997
it seems the evidence presented by the prosecution works against their own case. when you see this testimony from their last witness you have to wonder didn't they hear this in his deposition and if so why on earth put him on the stand?

were they (prosecution) too vested to withdraw the charges? did they think the negative media coverage prior to the trial would make up for the evidence that they've introduced going against them or are they just hoping for a conviction despite the (seemingly) evidence going against them?
 
  • Like
Reactions: StarRaider, NorthDallas40 and NEO
#998
#998
volinbham said:
it seems the evidence presented by the prosecution works against their own case. when you see this testimony from their last witness you have to wonder didn't they hear this in his deposition and if so why on earth put him on the stand?

were they (prosecution) too vested to withdraw the charges? did they think the negative media coverage prior to the trial would make up for the evidence that they've introduced going against them or are they just hoping for a conviction despite the (seemingly) evidence going against them?
Click to expand...

I think it's similar to the George Zimmerman case. The prosecution knows they have a loser of a case, but they also know that public sentiment demands that they at least take it to a jury. Heck, what if the defense attorneys failed in their trial prep and didn't ask the key questions? The DA might have gotten lucky.
 
#999
#999
bamawriter said:
I think it's similar to the George Zimmerman case. The prosecution knows they have a loser of a case, but they also know that public sentiment demands that they at least take it to a jury. Heck, what if the defense attorneys failed in their trial prep and didn't ask the key questions? The DA might have gotten lucky.
Click to expand...

I guess but at least in Zimmerman you had 2 unarmed people and only one (according to the media) was a person of color. Here you have several white idiots running around armed and you (prosecutors) had to know that both video evidence and the witnesses you planned to call would undermine the case. Seems at this point the only thing they had going was the media narrative (which can be partially filtered for in jury selection).
 
  • Like
Reactions: hog88, StarRaider and bamawriter
New posts
You must log in or register to reply here.
Advertisement

Back
Top