Another "I can't breath" death: Police Reform & Protests in the USA

[Goatfish]

You are not punished by the state. It's the same reason when OJ lost the CIVIL suit for murder he didn't spend any time in jail.

What's this? You cut that a bit short, let me help you out: https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/crime

Full Definition of crime
1: an illegal act for which someone can be punished by the government
especially : a gross violation of law
2: a grave offense especially against morality
3: criminal activity
efforts to fight crime
4: something reprehensible, foolish, or disgraceful
It's a crime to waste good food.

It's almost like words have more than one definition. Civil law also absolutely exists, and it is enforced by the government. Divorce is a great example of this, as the court is basically just a mediator that helps create and enforce a contract. Once you have the contract, violating the agreement (such as not paying child support) would be a civil crime enforceable by government entities. Refusal of that could lead to criminal charges.

edit: You could call it a civic offense if you really want to, but we all know exactly what I am talking about. Is arguing semantics or trying to play 'gotcha' just a fun past time here?

[Orange Joe]

What's this? You cut that a bit short, let me help you out: https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/crime


It's almost like words have more than one definition. Civil law also absolutely exists, and it is enforced by the government. Divorce is a great example of this, as the court is basically just a mediator that helps create and enforce a contract. Once you have the contract, violating the agreement (such as not paying child support) would be a civil crime enforceable by government entities. Refusal of that could lead to criminal charges.

And none of those apply to civil proceedings.

it isn't even enforced by the government. It still up to the winner to collect what they are owed. They just now have more options to collect said money. It's again why OJ didn't go to jail for not paying what he is suppose to from the civil case.

[PhaelixWW]

edit: You could call it a civic offense if you really want to, but we all know exactly what I am talking about. Is arguing semantics or trying to play 'gotcha' just a fun past time here?

The rebuttal against your ignorance of the law is hardly limited to terminological semantics.

It's just the most blatant offense.

You keep using the words "crime" and "guilty" because you're hopelessly confused about issues of civil law in general and tort law in specific.

[tikcol]

@tikcol


Can't answer or what?

Exonerated by who?

You keep using the word exonerated which has no real meaning in this case. Exoneration in a court only happens when someone was found guilty of a crime which later has been found that he didn't commit.

Exoneration—A person has been exonerated if he or she was convicted of a crime and, following a post-conviction re-examination of the evidence in the case, was either: (1) declared to be factually innocent by a government official or agency with the authority to make that declaration; or (2) relieved of all the consequences of the criminal conviction by a government official or body with the authority to take that action.

https://www.law.umich.edu/special/ex.../glossary.aspx

If you're talking about the court of public opinion then that's a question for each individual to answer. As for all this talk about defamation, I'm not interested in it

[Machismo]

I just checked, I didn't forget the thread title.

If you think that red flag laws are bad because government should not intervene, then my next question is how you feel about the spirit of those laws. 18 states have voted in some form of red flag law because they obviously believe in potentially preventing harm over someone's personal freedoms and constitutional rights. The link to this topic is the 'guilty by association' argument which leads to a potential usage of red flag laws.

I'm mostly confused about how someone could approve of mob mentality red flags, but not governmental, and why the difference between them if they can both cause undue harm to the innocent.

- - - Updated - - -



What? Wanting to get back on the thread topic instead of endless pages of people bashing Rittenhouse is a bailout? Could have fooled me. Sometimes arguing with fools just makes both sides seem foolish. It's good to know when a conversation is at an impasse and move on.

- - - Updated - - -



https://maylawllp.com/can-i-sue-the-...me-of-a-crime/

This is absolutely what the law states. If someone accuses you of rape and causes damages, and you were shown not guilty, you can in fact sue them for damages caused by a false accusation. I'm not sure you know enough about American law to comment so confidently in these absolutes. I should note again, US law varies wildly based off state, so talking about it in absolutes is quite likely to produce cases where we both are correct. For instance, I think in NY you can not sue someone for a rape allegation, but that is not the case in many other states.

Once again, you made claims and arguments, made false assertions about basic governmental and legal principles, pretended you never said any of it, then tried to run away from it all by gish galloping into more and more asinine subjects.

Your entire argument was based on a false premise that you tried to argue you never said in the first place.

So, the answer is simple. I'm supporting free speech, whilst you're opposing it... in order to shill for white supremacists, no less.

- - - Updated - - -

Even if he were, being a white supremacist is not a crime in the US. Causing damages by making that statement public as stated in the link I posted:



Because Rittenhouse was portrayed as a student, it's possible for someone to make the case that this kind of defamation would fall under "acting unethically" while being a student. In this matter he wouldn't even need to prove damages, but rather that the damages are assumed from the comment itself. The difference being that to get the damages he wants, he would need to show damages caused. Otherwise there seems to just be a nominal base fee.

There is also something called Defamation per Quod:

So this would potentially also cover something like your claim, even though what you are claiming is not a crime. Remember that I am not the one saying anything should happen, only that these things are possible. I personally don't understand why everyone has this massive hate boner for Rittenhouse and insist on derailing this thread to disparage him.

No, this is simply untrue. Otherwise, I could be sued for defamation, because I called a verified liar... a liar. My factual claim isn't what caused the damage, the liar getting caught within his own lies caused the damage.

You are literally calling on people to be punished for truthfully opposing racists.

- - - Updated - - -

And this matters to anyone, or is on topic to this thread title how? Seriously, why would you or anyone else in this thread care if Rittenhouse decides to use his own money to attempt a defamation case?

Because, it's a direct attack against the First Amendment.

[Vorkreist]

Except those conspiracies don't have evidence, and ours do.

Where is the evidence ? An ok sign ? Are you actually psychotic ?

[postman1782]

Where is the evidence ? An ok sign ? Are you actually psychotic ?

No. And I linked several pictures of him with several white supremacists. You have the Proud Boys, the Boogaloo Boys, who have committed several terrorist attacks, and Donald Trump.

I'm sorry you don't like the truth, but it doesn't change the fact that he is a white supremacist.

[DKjaigen]

No. And I linked several pictures of him with several white supremacists. You have the Proud Boys, the Boogaloo Boys, who have committed several terrorist attacks, and Donald Trump.

I'm sorry you don't like the truth, but it doesn't change the fact that he is a white supremacist.

Thats simply not evidence. And btw white supremacist are not really an issue anyway

[PhaelixWW]

And btw white supremacist are not really an issue anyway

Woooooooooooooooooooooow.

Haaaaard disagree.

Like, systemic racism is a huge problem, but blatant, outright, proud racism is an ugly, festering blight upon the world.

[tehdang]

Thats simply not evidence.

People around here get real fuzzy with complicity. Attending a bar with white supremacists is treated like he chanted 1488 slogans with them, or the invitation to join them was phrased with “Don’t you agree that we need a racially pure ethnostate?” It’s the best hung they’ve got to cling to at the moment, therefore there’s no stopping assertions that it’s incredibly probing of his character and he did it with full knowledge of the extent of their beliefs.

But that’s been hashed out to death in this thread.

I hear Rittenhouse is going to do a TPUSA event. This is a clear bad move for his future. I hope whoever advised him to drop the shitty lawyers also convinces him that the culture war rah-rah orgs on the right turn out clownish and juvenile wretches.

[s_bushido]

And btw white supremacist are not really an issue anyway

lol...

If you're going to play the "it's not a big deal, bro!" card, the rest of us are going to wonder why you people are here so fervently pretending to care that he was "defamed."

But yes, being photographed on multiple occasions palling around with white supremacists is more than enough evidence for someone to draw the conclusion that he is, at the very least, sympathetic to them.

[Daymanmb]

Thats simply not evidence. And btw white supremacist are not really an issue anyway

Guess he has no claim to defamation then. Case closed.

[Endus]

Thats simply not evidence.

It's obviously evidence.

What you're trying to argue is that it's not conclusive proof beyond a reasonable doubt, or something, but that's irrelevant, because that standard doesn't apply to defamation defenses.

And btw white supremacist are not really an issue anyway

Then it shouldn't be an issue to point them out, right?

[Edge-]

This is a clear bad move for his future.

Is it though? I mean, he's basically got a lock on an easy career doing speaking gigs about "how the left tried to cancel me" or some shit at TPUSA and CPAC and other conservative organizations.

Like, he's pretty set for life and all he has to do is "exist" and go gladhand some crazies. Throw out the "totally not a white supremacist 'OK' hand gesture" every now and then to keep himself in the news and the crowd fawning over him and he's living the American dream.

[Machismo]

Thats simply not evidence. And btw white supremacist are not really an issue anyway

I mean, he's now going on an appearance tour with fellow white supremacists and ethno-nationalists.

This is absolutely hilarious.

Your comments sure don't age well.

So, according to you, people who oppose racists and white supremacists are the scum of the Earth for defaming people by telling the truth about them. But, you also say the truth about them isn't actually bad, and certainly not as bad as those bastards who correctly point out that racists who are openly racist... are in fact, racist.

Does that cover it?

[Egomaniac]

Thats simply not evidence. And btw white supremacist are not really an issue anyway

The FBI seems to disagree with your assessment

https://www.independent.co.uk/news/w...-b1810615.html

The director of the FBI considers racially motivated domestic extremists such as white supremacists the “top threat” facing Americans, as the nation continues to learn more about such people who perpetrated the deadly insurrection at the US Capitol last month.

[tehdang]

Is it though? I mean, he's basically got a lock on an easy career doing speaking gigs about "how the left tried to cancel me" or some shit at TPUSA and CPAC and other conservative organizations.

Like, he's pretty set for life and all he has to do is "exist" and go gladhand some crazies. Throw out the "totally not a white supremacist 'OK' hand gesture" every now and then to keep himself in the news and the crowd fawning over him and he's living the American dream.

Would you take an easy career saying some version of "The left tried to get me convicted as a murderer" and "They tarred me as a white supremacist, and they'll do the same to you!" Come on, Edge, it's easy money!

[Machismo]

Would you take an easy career saying some version of "The left tried to get me convicted as a murderer" and "They tarred me as a white supremacist, and they'll do the same to you!" Come on, Edge, it's easy money!

Candace Owens did.

So did most political pundits.

So did George Zimmerman.

That's literally why TPUSA exists...

[Lenonis]

And btw white supremacist are not really an issue anyway

Someone clearly hasn't been paying attention to who is doing most of the domestic terrorism these days.

[draynay]

And btw white supremacist are not really an issue anyway

I mean... its 90% of this thread, but sure, glad that got solved.