Kyle Rittenhouse - The Truth in 11 Minutes

#1,026
#1,026
bamawriter said:
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.
Click to expand...
I'm not a legal versed person. What does directed verdict mean to a person like me who knows little to nothing?
 
#1,028
#1,028
NEO said:
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!
Click to expand...
I’m not taking anything out of context, you great crybaby.

You said the poster could be sued for defamation and be liable if damages could be proven. Multiple people told you that that’s incorrect and offered you thorough explanations about why the inquiry would never even reach the issue of damages. You doubled down, argued that you were right, said we were wrong, and called us stupid for not knowing better.

And yes, I know that opinions are not universally protected by the first amendment, that’s the holding of the Milkovich case I mentioned in a prior post. Glad you weren’t supremely lazy and actually read it. (Also, some state courts have declined to follow Milkovich and created their own constitutional protections for opinion under their own state constitutions. So, not “any lawyer worth anything” would think you can still be sued over an opinion, because they are still universally protected speech in some locations.)

Since the best you can do is pointing out that an incomplete summary of why you’re wrong was incomplete, I’ll restate the whole thing so you go back to your insolent complaints about long posts:

Under the federal constitutional analysis, which is the least protective standard allowed in the US, the events in Kenosha are clearly a matter of public concern. The standard for whether or not an opinion about a matter of public concern can be actionable is complicated by the first amendment because an overly broad standard would stifle public debate but the government still has a strong interest in ensuring that people are made whole for damage to their reputation. Therefore, “magic language” like “in my opinion” is not controlling in either direction.

A statement about a matter of public concern is actionable when the statement is provably false. Here, the post was not provably false because he did in fact kill someone and the evidence of that killing is available for public consumption and is subject to disagreement about whether it was justifiable. Even if a jury were to acquit Rittenhouse, disagreeing with that outcome is still fair game, even if it’s not an opinion that you or many other people will agree with.

Furthermore, under the public figure analysis, which could conceivably apply to Rittenhouse, a similar “statement of actual fact” and “actual malice” standards that have been applied to even more broadly protect speech would apply.

And all that still doesn’t cover the possibility that a court finds it to be rhetorical hyperbole, which is protected speech. (See the greenbelt case I mentioned earlier.)

I’m not sure how it’s so inconceivable that there are people who know more about this than you do? This isn’t even something that a non-lawyer would be expected to know that well. You’re the only one who was acting like it’s common knowledge and anybody who doesn’t agree with you is a moron. What an unforced faceplant into a big pile of your own stupid.
 
Last edited:
#1,030
#1,030
RockyTop85 said:
I’m not taking anything out of context, you great crybaby.

You said the poster could be sued for defamation and be liable if damages could be proven. Multiple people told you that that’s incorrect and offered you thorough explanations about why the inquiry would never even reach the issue of damages. You doubled down, argued that you were right, said we were wrong, and called us stupid for not knowing better.

And yes, I know that opinions are not universally protected by the first amendment, that’s the holding of the Milkovich case I mentioned in a prior post. Glad you weren’t supremely lazy and actually read it. (Also, some state courts have declined to follow Milkovich and created their own constitutional protections for opinion under their own state constitutions. So, not “any lawyer worth anything” would think you can still be sued over an opinion, because they are still universally protected speech in some locations.)

Since you decided that arguing about an incomplete summary of why you’re wrong was your best option, I’ll restate the whole thing so you go back to your insolent complaints about long posts:

Under the federal constitutional analysis, which is the least protective standard allowed in the US, the events in Kenosha are clearly a matter of public concern. The standard for whether or not an opinion about a matter of public concern can be actionable is complicated by the first amendment because an overly broad standard would stifle public debate but the government still has a strong interest in ensuring that people are made whole for damage to their reputation. Therefore, “magic language” like “in my opinion” is not controlling in either direction.

A statement about a matter of public concern is actionable when the statement is provably false. Here, the post was not provably false because he did in fact kill someone and the evidence of that killing is available for public consumption and is subject to disagreement about whether it was justifiable. Even if a jury were to acquit Rittenhouse, disagreeing with that outcome is still fair game, even if it’s not an opinion that you or many other people will agree with.

Furthermore, under the public figure analysis, which could conceivably apply to Rittenhouse, a similar “statement of actual fact” and “actual malice” standards that have been applied even more broadly protect speech would apply.

I’m not sure how it’s so inconceivable that there are people who know more about this than you do? This isn’t even something that a non-lawyer would be expected to know that well. You’re the only one who was acting like it’s common knowledge and anybody who doesn’t agree with you is a moron. What an unforced faceplant into a big pile of your own stupid.
Click to expand...

didn’t read…..
 
#1,031
#1,031
RockyTop85 said:
Judge says that the prosecution hasn’t met its burden as a matter of law and acquits the defendant himself without sending the case to a jury.
Click to expand...
Appreciated. This seems possible.... But in the current climate I'm not sure a judge would do that.
 
#1,033
#1,033
KB5252 said:
Appreciated. This seems possible.... But in the current climate I'm not sure a judge would do that.
Click to expand...
This judge seems actually sensible and justice-minded. The prosecution has been clowned so bad with their four major witnesses that it's getting close to time for them to be punished for erroneously bringing this to court.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Carl Pickens and Rickyvol77
#1,034
#1,034
KB5252 said:
Appreciated. This seems possible.... But in the current climate I'm not sure a judge would do that.
Click to expand...

This is my thought. I seems extremely unlikely, just on optics alone, they wouldn't want this to play out through the whole process.
 
#1,035
#1,035
ButchPlz said:
This judge seems actually sensible and justice-minded. The prosecution has been clowned so bad with their four major witnesses that it's getting close to time for them to be punished for erroneously bringing this to court.
Click to expand...
I would imagine it would be very difficult for a judge to take away the jury trial that a very vocal portion of the public demands here.... But based on some of the info I've seen it does seem a possibility.
 
  • Like
Reactions: NEO
#1,036
#1,036
KB5252 said:
I would imagine it would be very difficult for a judge to take away the jury trial that a very vocal portion of the public demands here.... But based on some of the info I've seen it does seem a possibility.
Click to expand...
It shouldn't be difficult. If it's difficult, if our society is bending to the demands of mobs that have zero sense of justice and truth, then we've already failed. I hope this man makes the correct decision.
 
#1,037
#1,037
KB5252 said:
Appreciated. This seems possible.... But in the current climate I'm not sure a judge would do that.
Click to expand...
They’re rare. Most places, the Judge has got to get re-elected and directing verdicts, even in the rare instances that it’s warranted, isn’t the best way to do that.

I didn’t follow the trial very closely. Based on what I saw at the time, I wouldn’t have convicted him of homicide unless the Rosenbaum killing was unlawful. Basically, if he didn’t provoke Rosenbaum then the only question seems like it boils down to whether the force he used was proportional to the force Rosenbaum would have used.

I suspect there is still a possibility of conviction on the smaller charges like illegal possession of a gun, so I expect it will go to the jury on all counts and judge will reconsider the unproven charges afterwards if the jury fails to acquit him. The defendant can renew his motion for judgment of acquittal, which is basically the same thing, after the verdict.
 
#1,038
#1,038
Hunerwadel said:
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)?
Click to expand...
I don't know. How many people run into a burning building to pull someone out that has no relationship to them? I wouldn't do that either. Your point is nonsensical.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Carl Pickens and Rickyvol77
#1,040
#1,040
SpaceCoastVol said:
I don't know. How many people run into a burning building to pull someone out that has no relationship to them? I wouldn't do that either. Your point is nonsensical.
Click to expand...

Wouldn’t an apples to apples comparison be running into a burning building to save someone else’s personal property?
 
#1,043
#1,043
RockyTop85 said:
Wouldn’t an apples to apples comparison be running into a burning building to save someone else’s personal property?
Click to expand...
His was an odd question. I don't really even find it all that interesting. The fact is that some people run towards trouble. I think the kid did want to help quell the lawlessness that he saw going on in this country. Would I do it? Nope. But Hunder was implying that KW is a one off, and I am not so sure that is necessarily true. Pretty much any first responder falls into that category. And now, the health care people are being vilified for doing it which is a priceless window into what this administration is all about.
 
  • Like
Reactions: RockyTop85
#1,046
#1,046
RockyTop85 said:
It’s always nice when stupid people are predictable:
Click to expand...

I am really trying hard here to politely walk away but you are making a fool of yourself by labeling me as a stupid person. We can disagree and that is fine but you look like an arse at this point. You took this to a name calling contest out of the gate and it was pathetic.

Just keep throwing around childish insults. It’s fine. It’s why the minute you got involved I was out. It’s not an intellectual debate with you, ever. It’s just you name calling and belittling.

But I am done here. You turned a civil debate into a childish name calling diatribe and it’s beneath me.

Cheers!
 
  • Like
Reactions: Rickyvol77
#1,048
#1,048
NEO said:
I am really trying hard here to politely walk away but you are making a fool of yourself by labeling me as a stupid person. We can disagree and that is fine but you look like an arse at this point. You took this to a name calling contest out of the gate and it was pathetic.

Just keep throwing around childish insults. It’s fine. It’s why the minute you got involved I was out. It’s not an intellectual debate with you, ever. It’s just you name calling and belittling.

But I am done here. You turned a civil debate into a childish name calling diatribe and it’s beneath me.

Cheers!
Click to expand...
Yeah, insulting, being impolite, and name calling are sooooo beneath you. 😂🤣
NEO said:
Ps. Sad the guy who doesn’t claim to be a lawyer is the one actually posting actual case studies.
Click to expand...
NEO said:
Any lawyer worth a grain of salt would know this.
Click to expand...
NEO said:
you two morons couldn’t seem to get that so you kept going on and on.
Click to expand...
NEO said:
your career as an ambulance chaser makes you the go to and bamawriter has a job…..
Click to expand...

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...

NEO said:
Also, any lawyer worth anything…
Click to expand...
 
New posts
You must log in or register to reply here.
Advertisement

Back
Top