Kyle Rittenhouse - The Truth in 11 Minutes

[NEO]

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.

Here is the part you are missing: I get your point. I see your point. I disagree on certain specific parts.

I believe that using the worded murderer infers guilt. The word killed does not. Calling him a killer is a fact. Whether it can harm his reputation or not is moot because it is a fact. If though he is found not guilty then calling him a murderer implies guilt which could damage his reputation.

I already conceded that in this specific site damages would be almost impossible to prove but that was never my original post.

My original post was very clear. If he is found not guilty you might want to change that because it could be deemed slander/libel. That is true. Would he be actually sued? Slim chance in hell. But in a real world scenario where if he stated this yes he could easily be sued if the other person could prove damages. Workplace environment for example. My post was advice.

He isn’t calling him an ass, a jerk, a moron. All things of personal opinion. He is calling him a very specific thing. Murder is defined as unlawfully killing someone. If I say you killed someone when you were a child, it could be taken as an act of self defense or illegal. If I say you murderer someone when you were a child, I am inferring you were found guilty in court.

Comedians are also given artistic license which makes it near impossible to sue them. It is also not wise to sue a comedian most times and it would be bad PR.

Lastly, I responded to your post because you were respectful and cool about it but for the love of God can we let this go now? Neither of us are convincing the other at this point. We are at an impasse.

And yes, I get you disagree with almost everything I just posted. It’s ok. I can accept that.

 

[Carl Pickens]

One of the prosecutors facepalmed after that answer was given. It’s looking quite unlikely that he’s getting convicted of the murder charges.

What could the prosecutor have expected him to say? It was on video ….. these prosecutors are freaking clowns

 

[volinbham]

How many would attend the riot and threaten to kill people? …. It goes both ways

yep the place was crawling with people who had no dog in the hunt according to Hunerwadel's criteria.

I'm quite certain people on the rioting side came from much further away than this guy did.

ask the question of all of them

 

[volinbham]

What could the prosecutor have expected him to say? It was on video ….. these prosecutors are freaking clowns

clearly he said this too in the deposition

 

[NEO]

yep the place was crawling with people who had no dog in the hunt according to Hunerwadel's criteria.

I'm quite certain people on the rioting side came from much further away than this guy did.

ask the question of all of them

Here is my question: what you think happens in that area after he is acquitted?

 

[volinbham]

Here is my question: what you think happens in that area after he is acquitted?

hopefully irrelevant to the trial outcome but agitators gonna agitate.

 

[Vol8188]

What are his damages?

Surely this is a joke? We all know he’s going to have a difficult time having anything close to a normal life after this.

The real question is does their coverage meet the criteria for libel/slander? But the damages, there’s no real question there

 

[Vol8188]

Just curious. How many of you guys would grab your AR15 and run to a riot if you didn't have a dog in the hunt (i.e. business, property or person in the area)?

Just curious. When’s the last time you raped some kids and then chased an armed man?

 

[volfanhill]

Just curious. How many of you guys would grab your AR15 and run to a riot if you didn't have a dog in the hunt (i.e. business, property or person in the area)?

Would you riot and burn shat down? Just curious .

 

[NCFisher]

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?

====================================================================================
KENOSHA, Wisc. — It was a bad day for key prosecution witness Gaige Grosskreutz, the third person shot by Kyle Rittenhouse during the Kenosha riots last year, during cross-examination by the defense on Monday as they got him to admit he lied several times about what happened in the aftermath of the shootings.


Grosskreutz testified he was carrying a Glock 27 handgun the night of the shootings despite the fact his concealed carry license was expired. Grosskreutz added he saw Rittenhouse running away after hearing gunshots. Grosskreutz said when he found Rittenhouse running away and asked him if he shot someone, Rittenhouse told Grosskreutz he was going to the police. Grosskreutz said he grabbed his handgun because he thought Rittenhouse was an active shooter.

Grosskreutz claimed Rittenhouse racked the bolt back on the AR-15 while he had his hands in the air.

"I was never trying to kill the defendant," Grosskreutz said.

Upon cross-examination, defense lawyer Corey Chirafisi got Grosskreutz to admit he lied to police on several occasions:

• Grosskreutz told officers shortly after the shooting that "I dropped my firearm." The defense said that was a lie because Grosskreutz chased after Rittenhouse and he had just testified he pulled out his gun while running.
• The defense got Grosskreutz to admit in court in the lawsuit he has filed against the city of Kenosha, he is demanding $10 million for damages, he failed to mention he was armed when he was shot by Rittenhouse.
• Grosskreutz said it is not true to say he chased after Rittenhouse. Chirafisi then showed Grosskreutz a picture of him grabbing his handgun while running toward Rittenhouse. Even after being shown the photo, Grosskreutz still said he was not chasing Rittenhouse.
• Grosskreutz initially told police he shouted to Anthony Huber to stop hitting Rittenhouse with a skateboard. When pressed by Chirafisi, Grosskreutz said "with the benefit of hindsight" that is not true.

If that was not enough, Grosskreutz then agreed with Chirafisi that Rittenhouse did not shoot until after Grosskreutz put his hands down and advanced toward Rittenhouse while pointing his Glock at Rittenhouse.
Rittenhouse's Defense Team Shreds Gaige Grosskreutz, Third Person Shot, By Exposing Several Lies

From the reactions of prosecutors, he may have lied to them and only came clean under testimony. Still, at best prosecution comes off as inept; this is the third of their witnesses that has exposed them.

 

[NCFisher]

Just curious. How many of you guys would grab your AR15 and run to a riot if you didn't have a dog in the hunt (i.e. business, property or person in the area)?

Not enough. If the L.A. riots are any clue, it'd be effective.

 

[Pepe_Silvia]

Just curious. How many of you guys would grab your AR15 and run to a riot if you didn't have a dog in the hunt (i.e. business, property or person in the area)?

I would stay at home and launch one of my tactical nukes into the area. I'm kind of lazy though.

 

[Rickyvol77]

Just curious. How many of you guys would grab your AR15 and run to a riot if you didn't have a dog in the hunt (i.e. business, property or person in the area)?

None but if I was walking down the street with said AR and three felons chased me, assaulted me and tried to kill me with weapons I would use it and be justified doing so

 

[NurseGoodVol]

After all the accusations about various people that have been thrown around on VN PF, now there's a debate about defamation?

Well, you know, things are taken to the nth degree here.

 

[RikidyBones]

Surely this is a joke? We all know he’s going to have a difficult time having anything close to a normal life after this.

The real question is does their coverage meet the criteria for libel/slander? But the damages, there’s no real question there

I see it similar to that Nick kid in DC that smiled and was labeled a white supremacist. This time it took someone to a trial and his face is plastered on screen longer than a single news cycle.

 

[ClearwaterVol]

Surely this is a joke? We all know he’s going to have a difficult time having anything close to a normal life after this.

The real question is does their coverage meet the criteria for libel/slander? But the damages, there’s no real question there

How does he prove those damages in advance? Look up recoverability of speculative damages for libel/slander. I'd say if he's acquitted OANN would love to hire him.

 

[RikidyBones]

How does he prove those damages in advance? Look up recoverability of speculative damages for libel/slander. I'd say if he's acquitted OANN would love to hire him.

The Nick kid got a settlement.

 

[bamawriter]

Here is the part you are missing: I get your point. I see your point. I disagree on certain specific parts.

I believe that using the worded murderer infers guilt. The word killed does not. Calling him a killer is a fact. Whether it can harm his reputation or not is moot because it is a fact. If though he is found not guilty then calling him a murderer implies guilt which could damage his reputation.

I'm not missing this point at all. Of course calling him a murderer implies guilt, but it isn't defamatory even if he's acquitted. One is entitled to hold the opinion that the jury got it wrong and that he should have been convicted of murder, and one is allowed to express that opinion even if doing so might harm Rittenhouse's reputation. The law protects one's reputation against falsehoods. It does not protect it against opinion.

 

[NEO]

I'm not missing this point at all. Of course calling him a murderer implies guilt, but it isn't defamatory even if he's acquitted. One is entitled to hold the opinion that the jury got it wrong and that he should have been convicted of murder, and one is allowed to express that opinion even if doing so might harm Rittenhouse's reputation. The law protects one's reputation against falsehoods. It does not protect it against opinion.

Groovy

 

[Hunerwadel]

Would you riot and burn shat down? Just curious .

Nothing has brought me to that point yet. But never say never.

 

[NCFisher]

This is the fourth prosecution witness to blow up in prosecution's face:
WATCH: Kenosha Detective Admits Kyle Rittenhouse Only Shot People Chasing Him

The prosecution then called Detective Antaramian, and Chirafisi went to work again, eliciting an admission that police declined to execute a search warrant on Grosskreutz, and that Rittenhouse had only shot people who were pursuing him.

Chirafisi systematically worked through the other possibilities: “You’d agree there are multiple times, based on the surrounding circumstances, that he doesn’t pull the trigger, right?” After Antaramian seemed reluctant to agree, Chirafisi cited an example in which an unarmed person ran up to Rittenhouse, and then stepped back, and the latter did not fire.

The cross-examination continued:

Chirafisi: You saw other people that were kind of — it wasn’t a two or three-person chase, there were multiple people kind of around Mr. Rittenhouse, some of them brandishing weapons, correct?
Antaramian: There were people — and there were people that were armed, absolutely.
Chirafisi: And those people who didn’t attack him — he didn’t fire at them, did he?
Antaramian: Correct.
Chirafisi: The only people that he fired at were people that had either kicked him, hit him with something, or pulled a gun on him when he’s running down Sheridan Road, right?
Antaramian: I would agree with that statement.
Chirafisi: And after he — initially, when he sees Gaige Grosskreutz, you’d agree when Mr. Grosskreutz’s hands are up, he doesn’t fire?
Antaramian: Correct.
Chirafisi: There is a person — to Mr. Grosskreutz’s — it would be his left — with a metal pipe. Do you remember that?
Antaramian: I don’t –earlier, you called it a wooden club — I don’t know that I’ve ever seen wooden, or — off, fairly off in the distance there’s a metal pipe, yes.
Chirafisi: So people who are armed, he doesn’t fire at any of those people, does he?
Antaramian: Correct.
Chirafisi: After the shooting, I counted — and I don’t, I’m not asking you for the specific number — but there’s multiple shots fired after Mr. Rittenhouse fires his last shout, right?
Antaramian: Correct.
Chirafisi: I counted ten, but there’s multiple, right?
Antaramian: Agreed.
Chirafisi: He never turns and fires in that direction, does he?
Antaramian: No.​

Last year, then-candidate Joe Biden claimed, without evidence, that Rittenhouse was a white supremacist. No evidence to that effect has been presented to the court.

The trial resumes Tuesday in the Kenosha County Court.

 

[Hoosier_Vol]

 

[ButchPlz]

This is the fourth prosecution witness to blow up in prosecution's face:
WATCH: Kenosha Detective Admits Kyle Rittenhouse Only Shot People Chasing Him

The prosecution then called Detective Antaramian, and Chirafisi went to work again, eliciting an admission that police declined to execute a search warrant on Grosskreutz, and that Rittenhouse had only shot people who were pursuing him.

Chirafisi systematically worked through the other possibilities: “You’d agree there are multiple times, based on the surrounding circumstances, that he doesn’t pull the trigger, right?” After Antaramian seemed reluctant to agree, Chirafisi cited an example in which an unarmed person ran up to Rittenhouse, and then stepped back, and the latter did not fire.

The cross-examination continued:

Chirafisi: You saw other people that were kind of — it wasn’t a two or three-person chase, there were multiple people kind of around Mr. Rittenhouse, some of them brandishing weapons, correct?​

Antaramian: There were people — and there were people that were armed, absolutely.​

Chirafisi: And those people who didn’t attack him — he didn’t fire at them, did he?​

Antaramian: Correct.​

Chirafisi: The only people that he fired at were people that had either kicked him, hit him with something, or pulled a gun on him when he’s running down Sheridan Road, right?​

Antaramian: I would agree with that statement.​

Chirafisi: And after he — initially, when he sees Gaige Grosskreutz, you’d agree when Mr. Grosskreutz’s hands are up, he doesn’t fire?​

Antaramian: Correct.​

Chirafisi: There is a person — to Mr. Grosskreutz’s — it would be his left — with a metal pipe. Do you remember that?​

Antaramian: I don’t –earlier, you called it a wooden club — I don’t know that I’ve ever seen wooden, or — off, fairly off in the distance there’s a metal pipe, yes.​

Chirafisi: So people who are armed, he doesn’t fire at any of those people, does he?​

Antaramian: Correct.​

Chirafisi: After the shooting, I counted — and I don’t, I’m not asking you for the specific number — but there’s multiple shots fired after Mr. Rittenhouse fires his last shout, right?​

Antaramian: Correct.​

Chirafisi: I counted ten, but there’s multiple, right?​

Antaramian: Agreed.​

Chirafisi: He never turns and fires in that direction, does he?​

Antaramian: No.​

Last year, then-candidate Joe Biden claimed, without evidence, that Rittenhouse was a white supremacist. No evidence to that effect has been presented to the court.

The trial resumes Tuesday in the Kenosha County Court.

This should never have seen court. The justice system in this country is trash.

 

[bamawriter]

I wouldn't usually advocate for a directed verdict in a scenario as serious as a double murder trial. But unless the State has something really big that they're prepared to present, I'm inclined to think that a directed verdict is the right call.

 

[DEFENDTHISHOUSE]