Kyle Rittenhouse - The Truth in 11 Minutes

#901
#901
NEO said:
Just a FYI but when this kid is acquitted you have technically just committed slander and could be sued.

You may want to rethink taking an opinion and making it factual.

You can say you think he is but you cannot state it as a truth.
Click to expand...

So, OJ Simpson could sue me for saying that he committed a heinous double murder?
 
#902
#902
K-town Vol Fan said:
He's a cold blooded murderer.
Click to expand...

Prosecution alleged Rittenhouse chased and shot Rosenbaum. As videos show, in actuality 36 year-old Rosenbaum hid behind a car for 17 year-old Rittenhouse to approach, then tried to ambush him and was shot after chasing Ritt and while lunging at him.

(Prosecutor) Binger was trying to get the Daily Caller’s Richie McGinniss to say that Rosenbaum was already falling to the ground when he was shot. Keep in mind — McGinniss is supposed to be the prosecution’s witness. McGinniss said that wasn’t his testimony, maintaining that Rosenbaum was “lunging” at Rittenhouse.

This is how weak their case is — their own witnesses are providing golden evidence that helps the defense. Binger should have stopped with that embarrassment. But he didn’t. He then did the one thing that lawyers are taught never to do — never ask a question to which you don’t know the answer.

Binger kept pressing McGinniss on how could he know anything about what Rosenbaum was thinking in the encounter with Rittenhouse. “So your interpretation of what he [Rosenbaum] was trying to do, what he was intending to do, or anything along those line, is complete guesswork?”

McGinnis looked at the prosecutor as though he was out of his mind and replied, “Well, he [Rosenbaum] said ‘**** you’ and then he reached for the weapon.”

Prosecutor Binger then put another of his - HIS - eyewitnesses on the stand
Balch recounted what happened with Rosenbaum, “He said, ‘If I catch you guys alone tonight I’m gonna f–king kill you.’” Balch said that Rosenbaum had been acting in a violent manner and had been trying to set dumpsters on fire.

That demonstrated the threat from Rosenbaum, another assist to the defense.

Looks like Rittenhouse should be paying two teams for legal defense.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Carl Pickens, Rickyvol77 and StarRaider
#905
#905
bamawriter said:
So, OJ Simpson could sue me for saying that he committed a heinous double murder?
Click to expand...

technically yes.

and technically if it could be found you caused damage to his name or brand you would owe compensation.

you can say I believe or I think but u cannot take something such as illegal activity and state it’s a truth unless they have been convicted.

it’s why most news outlets stress the word alleged.
 
#906
#906
K-town Vol Fan said:
He's a cold blooded murderer.
Click to expand...

You realize the guy he shot told others he was going to kill the kid if he caught him alone, chased him, and then went for his gun right?

The others pulled a gun on him, hit him with a skateboard, and kicked him.

So tell me which of those was undeserving of being shot and do was killed in cold blood?
 
  • Like
Reactions: tbwhhs, Carl Pickens, Rickyvol77 and 3 others
#907
#907
NEO said:
technically yes.

and technically if it could be found you caused damage to his name or brand you would owe compensation.

you can say I believe or I think but u cannot take something such as illegal activity and state it’s a truth unless they have been convicted.

it’s why most news outlets stress the word alleged.
Click to expand...

That's not how it works. At all. There is a signficant legal difference between the press and someone posting on an internet message board.

While I am inclined to believe that Rittenhouse ought to be acquitted, it is unrefuted fact that he committed a homicide. Even if he is ultimately acquitted, it is not unreasonable for one to have developed the belief that Rittenhouse's actions constituted murder, nor is it libelous to state that belief even if one doesn't explicitly state that it's one's opinion.

It may not be fair to the kid. But it's a reality that he's going to have to accept.
 
#908
#908
bamawriter said:
That's not how it works. At all. There is a signficant legal difference between the press and someone posting on an internet message board.

While I am inclined to believe that Rittenhouse ought to be acquitted, it is unrefuted fact that he committed a homicide. Even if he is ultimately acquitted, it is not unreasonable for one to have developed the belief that Rittenhouse's actions constituted murder, nor is it libelous to state that belief even if one doesn't explicitly state that it's one's opinion.

It may not be fair to the kid. But it's a reality that he's going to have to accept.
Click to expand...

You are wrong but it’s ok.

Libel is when it’s written down and slander is when you speak it.

Anybody can sue anyone for either and if it can be proven it impacted the person damages are awarded.

Example: David Schwimmer sued and won over someone saying he was given two Rolex watches to attend a charity.

In 2005, Sharon stone sued and won over a doctor saying she had a facelift.

Anytime you state an opinion as a fact about someone that can be proven false and hurts their brand they can sue.

And no, you are not given immunity here.

The website by laws here clearly state Freaks LLC can give your personal information to the police or said court at any time if it is deemed necessary.

so I was simply giving free advise on here that can be taken or not.

But if he is acquitted the murder allegation made as a statement is now legally false.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Rickyvol77, UT_Dutchman and StarRaider
#914
#914
NEO said:
You are wrong but it’s ok.

Libel is when it’s written down and slander is when you speak it.

Anybody can sue anyone for either and if it can be proven it impacted the person damages are awarded.

Example: David Schwimmer sued and won over someone saying he was given two Rolex watches to attend a charity.

In 2005, Sharon stone sued and won over a doctor saying she had a facelift.

Anytime you state an opinion as a fact about someone that can be proven false and hurts their brand they can sue.

And no, you are not given immunity here.

The website by laws here clearly state Freaks LLC can give your personal information to the police or said court at any time if it is deemed necessary.

so I was simply giving free advise on here that can be taken or not.

But if he is acquitted the murder allegation made as a statement is now legally false.
Click to expand...

Not to pull rank here, but I actually have to worry about libel as a part of my job. I am constantly reminded of where the line is drawn.

If it were as simple as you say, how did Norm Macdonald get away with calling OJ a murderer week after week on SNL? How about comedians like Dave Chappelle or Chris Rock who worked him into their acts?

Defamation is way more nuanced than you think.
 
#916
#916
bamawriter said:
Not to pull rank here, but I actually have to worry about libel as a part of my job. I am constantly reminded of where the line is drawn.

If it were as simple as you say, how did Norm Macdonald get away with calling OJ a murderer week after week on SNL? How about comedians like Dave Chappelle or Chris Rock who worked him into their acts?

Defamation is way more nuanced than you think.
Click to expand...

OJ lost his civil case and the court legally found him liable for her and Ron’s death so his reputation was ruined therefore no damages would be there to afford. Horrible example. And not everyone sues nor cares to sue.

You can try to pull rank all day if you prefer. Glad you have a job. I can only hope to be as successful as you one day.

But law wise everything I said is true. “If” damages can be found then you lose in court.

Let it go.

You are wrong.
 
  • Like
Reactions: StarRaider
#918
#918
NEO said:
OJ lost his civil case and the court legally found him liable for her and Ron’s death so his reputation was ruined therefore no damages would be there to afford. Horrible example. And not everyone sues nor cares to sue.
Click to expand...

OJ was getting ripped long before the civil trial.

But law wise everything I said is true. “If” damages can be found then you lose in court.

Let it go.

You are wrong.
Click to expand...

I'm not. A civil suit over calling Rittenhouse a murderer wouldn't survive summary judgment. It is undisputed that he committed an act of homicide. That is a matter of fact. A defamation claim has to argue that a statement is false. That a killing was self defense or murder is a matter of law, not fact. Scores of people have called George Zimmerman a murderer and he'd never win a suit against any of them.

An acquittal has never, in the history of American jurisprudence, precluded free speech. How many times have we heard prosecutors publicly say "the jury got it wrong," following an acquittal? By your logic they have all committed slander. The law does not say that an aquittal is proof that no crime was committed. An acquittal simply means that the state failed to carry its burden of proof. No jury has ever found a defendant "innocent."
 
Last edited:
  • Like
Reactions: Septic
#919
#919
NEO said:
OJ lost his civil case and the court legally found him liable for her and Ron’s death so his reputation was ruined therefore no damages would be there to afford. Horrible example. And not everyone sues nor cares to sue.

You can try to pull rank all day if you prefer. Glad you have a job. I can only hope to be as successful as you one day.

But law wise everything I said is true. “If” damages can be found then you lose in court.

Let it go.

You are wrong.
Click to expand...
He’s not wrong.
 
#923
#923
RockyTop85 said:
He’s not wrong.
Click to expand...

The amount of libel cases and slander cases thst have been successful over the years that I have seen and personally dealt with say otherwise.

Yeah this is were you say you are a lawyer but no offense the dockets show different.

The OJ example was horrible as OJ was found legally liable in civil court which as an alleged lawyer you would know.

Sorry but the courts say different. I named 2 cases that show how stupid it can get.

Either way, I gave facts. He gave “my job” so as usual here we are. Neo gives facts and other sides counter points with worthless crap.
 
#924
#924
bamawriter said:
OJ was getting ripped long before the civil trial.



I'm not. A civil suit over calling Rittenhouse a murderer wouldn't survive summary judgment. It is undisputed that he committed an act of homicide. That is a matter of fact. A defamation claim has to argue that a statement is false. That a killing was self defense or murder is a matter of law, not fact. Scores of people have called George Zimmerman a murderer and he'd never win a suit against any of them.

An acquittal has never, in the history of American jurisprudence, precluded free speech. How many times have we heard prosecutors publicly say "the jury got it wrong," following an acquittal? By your logic they have all committed slander. The law does not say that an aquittal is proof that no crime was committed. An acquittal simply means that the state failed to carry its burden of proof. No jury has ever found a defendant "innocent."
Click to expand...

Not correct.

Calling someone a murderer implies guilt.

If he is found not guilty in all courts and someone still calls him a murderer he can sue and if damages can be proven the court will issue a monetary verdict.

But I am done here. Waste of my time.
 
New posts
You must log in or register to reply here.
Advertisement

Back
Top