1. #22361
    Quote Originally Posted by The Oblivion View Post
    you dont lose your right to go somewhere just because criminals will be present. if this was the case, there would be entire cities people should not be allowed to go. he never expressed any desire to shoot people, in fact, the video you reference is just as likely to be of anyone as it is to be of kyle.
    Just because you're shooting the shit with friends and mention something along the lines of "somebody ought to do something" does not make you forfeit your right of self defense. Rioters were burning down the city where he worked and his family lived and looting neighborhood stores. Every idle remark said in the wake of that isn't proof positive of intent. Even BLM activists that open carry or concealed carry w/ permit at the riot don't forfeit their rights just because in the weeks or months prior they wished white supremacist cops would die.

    It's really torturing the law to claim otherwise.

    For the record, the video I'm remembering doesn't show Rittenhouse and nobody in the video makes the claim that it is Rittenhouse speaking. I'm guessing its just the word of the reporter that found the video that it's Rittenhouse. That's pretty sketchy still, even if it doesn't have any ultimate bearing on the justifiable homicide.
    "I wish it need not have happened in my time." "So do all who live to see such times. But that is not for them to decide. All we have to decide is what to do with the time that is given us."

  2. #22362
    Quote Originally Posted by The Oblivion View Post
    he defended his own life against violent criminals. very black and white case of self defense.
    Nah. Not even in the slightest. But again, those defending white supremacists are just gonna continue being as deliberately obtuse as possible to justify it all, so carry on I guess, Oblivious.

  3. #22363
    Quote Originally Posted by Endus View Post
    Hardly. You really don't get how hard it is to demonstrate defamation, do you?

    Let's say Biden actually says something overt, like "Rittenhouse is a white supremacist". He hasn't, but let's assume it was that open, for the sake of argument.

    Now, let's say Rittenhouse, by way of example, applied to a job, and didn't get the job, and thinks it was because of the President's defamation. This is financial harm; you can't use hypotheticals, you need to identify specific instances where the statements negatively impacted you financially. So you can't use "all the jobs I won't be able to get in the future" or something; you need a specific job you specifically did not get, specifically because of that defamation.

    So, now you've got to put the employer on the stand, and he has to say that he didn't give Rittenhouse the job because of what Biden said. Not "because I think he's a white supremacist", because there's plenty of reasons to come to that conclusion other than Biden's statement. Not for any of the other coverage of his conduct that's been plastered over the media. It has to specifically be about what Biden said. Not that Biden confirmed a thing he'd already thought, that the idea originated with Biden's comment. Not to mention there's no indication that Rittenhouse would be a particularly qualified candidate for any particular job regardless. It's not like he's a star student or something. If you can't establish a direct connection between Biden's statement and his not getting the job, you've failed to demonstrate any damages.

    And last, you've got to prove that it's even unjustifiably wrong to think Rittenhouse even could be a white supremacist, so Biden knew his statement was wrong at the time he said it, or said it with a reckless disregard for the truth. If there's even a possibility it could be true, this test fails, and there was no defamation.

    What this is boiling down to is that you think "defamation" is "hurt fee-fees", and that's not how the law works. The law doesn't give even one single shit how angry or upset you are that someone said a mean thing about you.
    I really don't think it would be that hard to do it is very easy to connect the statement of a sitting president of having the power to negatively effect someones life. I also can't see how it wouldn't be reckless disregard for the truth. This entire incident comes off as nearly an SNL skit for anyone that looked at the actual facts rather then the medias spin on it. You could be right perhaps you can just tar and feather a innocent kid and not face any liability for it. I just hope your wrong.

    - - - Updated - - -

    Quote Originally Posted by Benggaul View Post
    Nah. Not even in the slightest. But again, those defending white supremacists are just gonna continue being as deliberately obtuse as possible to justify it all, so carry on I guess, Oblivious.
    Who is the white supremacist in this scenario? The innocent kid being attacked? The pedophile? The man who held his grandmother at knife point? The convicted felon aiming an illegally owned weapon at a child?

    I see a lotta crime but none of it seems based on race.

  4. #22364
    Titan Lenonis's Avatar
    10+ Year Old Account
    Join Date
    Jan 2011
    Location
    Chicago, IL
    Posts
    14,390
    Quote Originally Posted by tehdang View Post
    . Rioters were burning down the city where he worked and his family lived and looting neighborhood stores.
    He didn't work in Kenosha.
    Forum badass alert:
    Quote Originally Posted by Rochana Violence View Post
    It's called resistance / rebellion.
    Quote Originally Posted by Rochana Violence View Post
    Also, one day the tables might turn.

  5. #22365
    Quote Originally Posted by Lenonis View Post
    He didn't work in Kenosha.
    Lifeguard in Kenosha County, Wisconsin. I should get on the record at this point if you consider it a crime to travel across state lines to work. Also, is it a crime to travel across state lines to clean up graffiti in Kenosha in the hours before the protest turned to a riot.
    "I wish it need not have happened in my time." "So do all who live to see such times. But that is not for them to decide. All we have to decide is what to do with the time that is given us."

  6. #22366
    Titan Lenonis's Avatar
    10+ Year Old Account
    Join Date
    Jan 2011
    Location
    Chicago, IL
    Posts
    14,390
    Quote Originally Posted by tehdang View Post
    Lifeguard in Kenosha County, Wisconsin.
    do you know the difference been a county and a city?

    I should get on the record at this point if you consider it a crime to travel across state lines to work.
    absurd gotcha questions should be a crime. Actually it's trolling and against the forum rules. Interesting that.

    Also that has nothing to do with you being wrong about where he works. Not sure why you people seem incapable of admitting when you are wrong.
    Forum badass alert:
    Quote Originally Posted by Rochana Violence View Post
    It's called resistance / rebellion.
    Quote Originally Posted by Rochana Violence View Post
    Also, one day the tables might turn.

  7. #22367
    Quote Originally Posted by Lenonis View Post
    do you know the difference been a county and a city?

    absurd gotcha questions should be a crime. Actually it's trolling and against the forum rules. Interesting that.

    Also that has nothing to do with you being wrong about where he works. Not sure why you people seem incapable of admitting when you are wrong.
    I didn't see explicit identification of the Kenosha County lifeguard position, so for all I know it could be less than ten minutes away in a suburb. Maybe you can identify it?

    You've made a case out of the difference between Kenosha, the city, and Kenosha, the county, so I was wondering if this had any bearing on anything in particular. Since I don't know why, I hope you won't dodge the question again. Two of three of the men shot by Rittenhouse didn't live in Kenosha, so can I call them out of towners that just came into Kenosha to cause havoc? One had about the same driving distance from home, and the other roughly double Rittenhouse's. So, apologies, but trying to nitpick in a case that involves an absurd allegation regarding crossing state lines is trolling itself.
    "I wish it need not have happened in my time." "So do all who live to see such times. But that is not for them to decide. All we have to decide is what to do with the time that is given us."

  8. #22368
    I Don't Work Here Endus's Avatar
    10+ Year Old Account
    Join Date
    Feb 2010
    Location
    Ottawa, ON
    Posts
    78,895
    Quote Originally Posted by Chipped coin View Post
    I really don't think it would be that hard to do it is very easy to connect the statement of a sitting president of having the power to negatively effect someones life. I also can't see how it wouldn't be reckless disregard for the truth.
    It isn't about the power it might have. It's about identifiable, real harm it has had. No one cares about the imaginary hypotheticals in someone else's head, here.

    And it can't be "reckless disregard for the truth" because the truth is that Rittenhouse is at least friendly with white supremacists, which gives plenty of reason to think he is one himself.

    This entire incident comes off as nearly an SNL skit for anyone that looked at the actual facts rather then the medias spin on it. You could be right perhaps you can just tar and feather a innocent kid and not face any liability for it. I just hope your wrong.
    What liability would there be?

    Also, the "innocent kid" bullshit can get dropped. Rittenhouse is an adult. And a "not guilty" verdict is not a declaration of innocence. Calling him an "innocent kid" is a story you are making up, and it is not factual.


  9. #22369
    The Undying Cthulhu 2020's Avatar
    15+ Year Old Account
    Join Date
    Aug 2008
    Location
    Rigging your election
    Posts
    36,799
    Quote Originally Posted by Chipped coin View Post
    I really don't think it would be that hard to do it is very easy to connect the statement of a sitting president of having the power to negatively effect someones life.
    Where were yall when Trump was shitting on half the country? Oh that's right, it was fine when Trump did it.

    - - - Updated - - -

    Quote Originally Posted by Endus View Post
    Also, the "innocent kid" bullshit can get dropped. Rittenhouse is an adult. And a "not guilty" verdict is not a declaration of innocence. Calling him an "innocent kid" is a story you are making up, and it is not factual.
    The fact that the jury came back with not guilty on all counts was just utter bullshit. There were things that he did that were illegal that weren't just about the shooting of people. That he got off on all charges demonstrates how much of an abortion of justice this is.
    2014 Gamergate: "If you want games without hyper sexualized female characters and representation, then learn to code!"
    2023: "What's with all these massively successful games with ugly (realistic) women? How could this have happened?!"

  10. #22370
    Over 9000! PhaelixWW's Avatar
    10+ Year Old Account
    Join Date
    Dec 2012
    Location
    Washington (né California)
    Posts
    9,029
    Quote Originally Posted by Endus View Post
    Let's say Biden actually says something overt, like "Rittenhouse is a white supremacist". He hasn't, but let's assume it was that open, for the sake of argument.

    Now, let's say Rittenhouse, by way of example, applied to a job, and didn't get the job, and thinks it was because of the President's defamation. This is financial harm; you can't use hypotheticals, you need to identify specific instances where the statements negatively impacted you financially. So you can't use "all the jobs I won't be able to get in the future" or something; you need a specific job you specifically did not get, specifically because of that defamation.

    So, now you've got to put the employer on the stand, and he has to say that he didn't give Rittenhouse the job because of what Biden said. Not "because I think he's a white supremacist", because there's plenty of reasons to come to that conclusion other than Biden's statement. Not for any of the other coverage of his conduct that's been plastered over the media. It has to specifically be about what Biden said. Not that Biden confirmed a thing he'd already thought, that the idea originated with Biden's comment. Not to mention there's no indication that Rittenhouse would be a particularly qualified candidate for any particular job regardless. It's not like he's a star student or something. If you can't establish a direct connection between Biden's statement and his not getting the job, you've failed to demonstrate any damages.
    The far, far more salient fact here is that Rittenhouse can't legitimately sue anyone for defamation over comments of him being a white supremacist, because he willingly posed for photos with white supremacists while throwing up a white power handsign. Like, he can't blame someone else for supposed damages to his "character" when he engages in those same "damaging" comparisons willingly. If someone comes out and says "I'm a racist, piece of shit, Hitler-loving parasite!", then they can't legitimately sue for defamation if someone else says the same thing. It's nonsensical.


    Quote Originally Posted by The Oblivion View Post
    he defended his own life against violent criminals. very black and white case of self defense.
    Correction: They were defending their lives against a violent criminal. He just happened to have less respect for human life than they.


    "The difference between stupidity
    and genius is that genius has its limits."

    --Alexandre Dumas-fils

  11. #22371
    I Don't Work Here Endus's Avatar
    10+ Year Old Account
    Join Date
    Feb 2010
    Location
    Ottawa, ON
    Posts
    78,895
    Quote Originally Posted by Cthulhu 2020 View Post
    The fact that the jury came back with not guilty on all counts was just utter bullshit. There were things that he did that were illegal that weren't just about the shooting of people. That he got off on all charges demonstrates how much of an abortion of justice this is.
    I haven't seen it posted here yet, so let me add some fuel to the fire (and yes, this'll remain on-topic for the greater thread subject, too).

    Here's Chrystul Kizer; https://www.npr.org/2021/11/22/10579...r-self-defense

    A 17-year-old black girl (at the time of the shooting) who was a sex trafficking victim, who shot her abuser in the head as he was trying to rape her. She's currently in jail awaiting trial for first degree murder. She was arrested in mid-2018 and only got out on bail two years later, in June 2020, with support from several charitable groups making her bond. The State tried to deny her any right to claim self defense as a trafficking victim at all, and that had to get tossed by the appellate board in June of this year.

    How much have you heard about her case, compared to Rittenhouse?

    Quote Originally Posted by PhaelixWW View Post
    The far, far more salient fact here is that Rittenhouse can't legitimately sue anyone for defamation over comments of him being a white supremacist, because he willingly posed for photos with white supremacists while throwing up a white power handsign. Like, he can't blame someone else for supposed damages to his "character" when he engages in those same "damaging" comparisons willingly. If someone comes out and says "I'm a racist, piece of shit, Hitler-loving parasite!", then they can't legitimately sue for defamation if someone else says the same thing. It's nonsensical.
    Seriously, "truth" is an ironclad defense against claims of defamation.


  12. #22372
    Over 9000! PhaelixWW's Avatar
    10+ Year Old Account
    Join Date
    Dec 2012
    Location
    Washington (né California)
    Posts
    9,029
    Quote Originally Posted by Chipped coin View Post
    I really don't think it would be that hard to do it is very easy to connect the statement of a sitting president of having the power to negatively effect someones life.
    You "really don't think" because you have no idea what is required under law to prove defamation. You're equating "he was embarrassed" with defamation, which is not a legally sound comparison.


    Quote Originally Posted by Chipped coin View Post
    Who is the white supremacist in this scenario? The innocent kid being attacked? The pedophile? The man who held his grandmother at knife point? The convicted felon aiming an illegally owned weapon at a child?

    I see a lotta crime but none of it seems based on race.
    So many things wrong in this quote.

    1. Nobody's arguing that Rittenhouse is a white supremacist based on his victims.
    2. Rittenhouse is not innocent.
    3. The victims' criminal record are not relevant to their deaths.
    4. Grosskreutz is not a felon. His firearm was not illegally owned.
    5. Rittenhouse was actually the one in possession of an illegally owned firearm. In fact, Rittenhouse has already admitted guilt in what should be felony federal conspiracy in the straw purchase of said firearm.

    - - - Updated - - -

    Quote Originally Posted by tehdang View Post
    Lifeguard in Kenosha County, Wisconsin. I should get on the record at this point if you consider it a crime to travel across state lines to work. Also, is it a crime to travel across state lines to clean up graffiti in Kenosha in the hours before the protest turned to a riot.
    Sure sounds like he only used to work there, because he used his unemployment benefits after being let go to (illegally) buy the rifle with which he committed his acts of violence.
    Last edited by PhaelixWW; 2021-11-23 at 07:32 PM.


    "The difference between stupidity
    and genius is that genius has its limits."

    --Alexandre Dumas-fils

  13. #22373
    Quote Originally Posted by masterhorus8 View Post
    First amendment says hello.
    Yes, it's within their rights, of course.
    But I still, personally, think that they shouldn't have been there. Just like Kyle Rittenhouse.
    Which is why I said it's a shit show all around.

  14. #22374
    dunno what thread to post about the Charlottesville lawsuit in but the nazis (Jason Kessler, Richard Spencer, Christopher Cantwell, Robert 'Azzmador' Ray, Nathan Damigo, Eliott Kline, Matthew Heimbach, Matthew Parrott, Michael Hill, Michael Tubbs) and their organizations (Vanguard & League of the South, Identity Evropa, TWP, NSM) just got stung for $25 million in compensatory and punitive damages.

  15. #22375
    https://abcnews.go.com/US/wireStory/...s-blm-81344259

    So...Rittenhouse backs BLM apparently. Guess he's gonna lose a lot of those invites for conservative talk shows sooner rather than later.

  16. #22376
    Over 9000! PhaelixWW's Avatar
    10+ Year Old Account
    Join Date
    Dec 2012
    Location
    Washington (né California)
    Posts
    9,029
    Quote Originally Posted by Edge- View Post
    https://abcnews.go.com/US/wireStory/...s-blm-81344259

    So...Rittenhouse backs BLM apparently. Guess he's gonna lose a lot of those invites for conservative talk shows sooner rather than later.
    How quickly do you think they're going to pivot and start calling him an "antifa thug" while decrying his senseless violence?

    Also, super cringe:
    “I thought they came to the correct verdict because it wasn’t Kyle Rittenhouse on trial in Wisconsin — it was the right to self defense on trial,” Rittenhouse said in the interview. “And if I was convicted... no one would ever be privileged to defend their life against attackers.”


    "The difference between stupidity
    and genius is that genius has its limits."

    --Alexandre Dumas-fils

  17. #22377
    Quote Originally Posted by PhaelixWW View Post
    How quickly do you think they're going to pivot and start calling him an "antifa thug" while decrying his senseless violence?

    Also, super cringe:
    Is he speaking in the third person now? Who does he think he is? Justice Scalia? Because Justice Scalia doesn't appreciate that, and when Justice Scalia goes home to his wife he likes having a quiet evening.

  18. #22378
    Over 9000! PhaelixWW's Avatar
    10+ Year Old Account
    Join Date
    Dec 2012
    Location
    Washington (né California)
    Posts
    9,029
    Quote Originally Posted by Edge- View Post
    Is he speaking in the third person now? Who does he think he is? Justice Scalia? Because Justice Scalia doesn't appreciate that, and when Justice Scalia goes home to his wife he likes having a quiet evening.
    Yes, the blubbering man-child is gone, and the conservative "hero" exhibiting self-aggrandizing braggadocio has emerged. His future is "bright" in the bigotry circles, unlike the men he gunned down.


    "The difference between stupidity
    and genius is that genius has its limits."

    --Alexandre Dumas-fils

  19. #22379
    Quote Originally Posted by Endus View Post
    How much have you heard about her case, compared to Rittenhouse?
    Fun fact:
    Kenosha DA Michael Graveley fought hard to prosecute Kizur. He pawned the Rittenhouse case off to a subordinate.

  20. #22380
    Herald of the Titans
    10+ Year Old Account
    Join Date
    Jan 2014
    Location
    ID
    Posts
    2,557
    Quote Originally Posted by Ivanstone View Post
    Fun fact:
    Kenosha DA Michael Graveley fought hard to prosecute Kizur. He pawned the Rittenhouse case off to a subordinate.
    Priorities - can't have the victims shooting back. Maybe he would have taken the case if Grosskreutz had pulled the trigger.

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •