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

[Endus]

As expected, Rittenhouse goes on Hannity and claims Biden defamed him by calling him a White Supremacist.

"Oh, so Biden called him a White Supremacist?"

No.

"Um...then what's he talking about?"

Biden shared a video clip of him 100% disavowing white supremacists and other domestic terrorists.

"Including Rittenhouse?"

No. The clip was from the debates.

"But...surely he mentioned Rittenhouse by name?"



"...that's not very defaming. What's the deal?"

Biden said he stands by the jury's decision and then posted that video. Rittenhouse made the conclusion that, by putting the two things next to each other, that he was trying to make the two related.

For example, if you, say, had a video of a bunch of inhuman monsters being slain, and then also put the faces of your political opponents on the monsters that were being slain, and said "well, there's no relation between the two, it's just an anime clip, therefore, Biden said I was a KKK member."

I look forward to Rittenhouse's claiming to sue but then never doing it, because he has no case.

Even if Biden came right out and said, unequivocally and with no caveats, that Rittenhouse was a white supremacist, there wouldn't be grounds for defamation.

First, you'd need to provide evidence of harm. And in legal terms, that means financial losses. Hurt feefees are valued at $0. Rittenhouse is a minor and doesn't have a career to begin with, and thus there's basically no chance he could argue any kind of real harm caused. Especially with people like Gaetz saying they'd give him a Congressional internship after all this.

Second, you'd need to make a case that Biden is definitively wrong, and that he knows it, and said that anyway. Saying something you have an arguable reason to believe is not "defamation". And that arguable nature exists, for Rittenhouse, given that he was photographed hanging out with white supremacists. And even if you somehow managed to make a case that Rittenhouse isn't a white supremacist (and how are you doing that, exactly? His testimony won't prove anything), you're still gonna run up against whether Biden had justifiable reasons to believe it to be true. Being wrong does not make a claim defamation, only when you knew it was wrong when you said it, or had no reason to believe it might be true.

And none of this is held to a high standard. Nor is the "reasonable person" standard applied to the one accused of defamation. You need to prove reckless disregard by the accused, if not deliberate malice.

There's also factors like "fair comment and criticism" and "qualified privilege" and whatnot to add on even more protections for those accused of defamation.

All this talk about defamation with regards to Rittenhouse is just empty whining. You can just straight-up say that Rittenhouse is a shitheaded white supremacist murderer, and that's not "defamation" under the law. See? I just said it. Let's start the clock for when the lawsuit arrives at my doorstep.

[Breccia]

Even if Biden came right out and said, unequivocally and with no caveats, that Rittenhouse was a white supremacist, there wouldn't be grounds for defamation.

Funny story, a Trump supporter should believe that without evidence. Trump thought he couldn't even be sued for things he did prior to being in office. Now, he was wrong, but Rittenhouse and the rabid fanbase accept what he says as fact, even when a public court case disproves this.

[Cthulhu 2020]

Even if Biden came right out and said, unequivocally and with no caveats, that Rittenhouse was a white supremacist, there wouldn't be grounds for defamation.

First, you'd need to provide evidence of harm. And in legal terms, that means financial losses. Hurt feefees are valued at $0. Rittenhouse is a minor and doesn't have a career to begin with, and thus there's basically no chance he could argue any kind of real harm caused. Especially with people like Gaetz saying they'd give him a Congressional internship after all this.

Second, you'd need to make a case that Biden is definitively wrong, and that he knows it, and said that anyway. Saying something you have an arguable reason to believe is not "defamation". And that arguable nature exists, for Rittenhouse, given that he was photographed hanging out with white supremacists. And even if you somehow managed to make a case that Rittenhouse isn't a white supremacist (and how are you doing that, exactly? His testimony won't prove anything), you're still gonna run up against whether Biden had justifiable reasons to believe it to be true. Being wrong does not make a claim defamation, only when you knew it was wrong when you said it, or had no reason to believe it might be true.

And none of this is held to a high standard. Nor is the "reasonable person" standard applied to the one accused of defamation. You need to prove reckless disregard by the accused, if not deliberate malice.

There's also factors like "fair comment and criticism" and "qualified privilege" and whatnot to add on even more protections for those accused of defamation.

All this talk about defamation with regards to Rittenhouse is just empty whining. You can just straight-up say that Rittenhouse is a shitheaded white supremacist murderer, and that's not "defamation" under the law. See? I just said it. Let's start the clock for when the lawsuit arrives at my doorstep.

Pretty much this. Anyone who thinks calling Rittenhouse (or any conservative) a white supremacist is defamation or slander, needs to check how the legal system for slander and libel works. Just because it hurt your feefees doesn't mean you can sue over it.

Trump tried to do it numerous times, and he never "won". The only times he came out "ahead" was when he was able to pump money into dragging the trial out and keeping the other party in legal purgatory, to the point that they got sick of him and just decided to settle so he'd go away.

[The Oblivion]

It was fairly obvious, or rather, likely, that Rittenhouse would be found not guilty of murder. There's very nice proof in video format, so that was pretty set in stone in my opinion.
However, he should've never been out there in the first place, and neither should the protesters.
Just a clusterfuck all around! No winners, just losers.

he had every right to be there. someone committing criminal activity in an area does not prohibit law abiding citizens from being there. he does not lose his freedoms so others can riot and loot. kyle did not do a single thing wrong, he is a victim of violent criminals and barely escaped with his life. so many people (not you) have been victim blaming and thats just horrible.

[Chipped coin]

Even if Biden came right out and said, unequivocally and with no caveats, that Rittenhouse was a white supremacist, there wouldn't be grounds for defamation.

First, you'd need to provide evidence of harm. And in legal terms, that means financial losses. Hurt feefees are valued at $0. Rittenhouse is a minor and doesn't have a career to begin with, and thus there's basically no chance he could argue any kind of real harm caused. Especially with people like Gaetz saying they'd give him a Congressional internship after all this.

Second, you'd need to make a case that Biden is definitively wrong, and that he knows it, and said that anyway. Saying something you have an arguable reason to believe is not "defamation". And that arguable nature exists, for Rittenhouse, given that he was photographed hanging out with white supremacists. And even if you somehow managed to make a case that Rittenhouse isn't a white supremacist (and how are you doing that, exactly? His testimony won't prove anything), you're still gonna run up against whether Biden had justifiable reasons to believe it to be true. Being wrong does not make a claim defamation, only when you knew it was wrong when you said it, or had no reason to believe it might be true.

And none of this is held to a high standard. Nor is the "reasonable person" standard applied to the one accused of defamation. You need to prove reckless disregard by the accused, if not deliberate malice.

There's also factors like "fair comment and criticism" and "qualified privilege" and whatnot to add on even more protections for those accused of defamation.

All this talk about defamation with regards to Rittenhouse is just empty whining. You can just straight-up say that Rittenhouse is a shitheaded white supremacist murderer, and that's not "defamation" under the law. See? I just said it. Let's start the clock for when the lawsuit arrives at my doorstep.

He would walk out with a pretty fat settlement likely more if it dragged on to election season. It would be mindlessly easy to argue harm if the president of the United states slanders you.

This really seems almost insane to argue otherwise. Christ is this really how lost you are in tribalism? Take some time and reevaluate just what it is you believe.

[Masark]

Christ is this really how lost you are in tribalism?

He's not even in your country.

[PhaelixWW]

so many people (not you) have been victim blaming and thats just horrible.

The irony here is suffocatingly acute.

- - - Updated - - -

He would walk out with a pretty fat settlement likely more if it dragged on to election season. It would be mindlessly easy to argue harm if the president of the United states slanders you.

It's clear that you don't understand the first thing about tort law from these statements. There's no legitimate argument for defamation here.

[DarkTZeratul]

It would be mindlessly easy to argue harm if the president of the United states slanders you.

If that were true, Donald Trump would have been sued for defamation several times over during his presidency.

Meanwhile, Kyle Rittenhouse went on Tucker Carlson and said, "I'm not a racist person. I support the BLM movement." But I don't really care about the statement itself. What's more curious is just how many people on the right are turning against him for that statement, saying things like "it's fucking over man, I'm done", and "spent 3 weeks praying for this dude to be acquitted just for thim to say this", and "Kyle is NOT white CODE BROWN he is NOT one of us".

[Benggaul]

he had every right to be there. someone committing criminal activity in an area does not prohibit law abiding citizens from being there. he does not lose his freedoms so others can riot and loot. kyle did not do a single thing wrong, he is a victim of violent criminals and barely escaped with his life. so many people (not you) have been victim blaming and thats just horrible.

If you murder people you are not the victim. The people you murdered are the victims. I know the judge in this case seemed to have trouble with that despite the fact it's a very basic concept, so I guess it's understandable if people siding with white supremacists would also find it difficult.

[JohnBrown1917]

He would walk out with a pretty fat settlement likely more if it dragged on to election season. It would be mindlessly easy to argue harm if the president of the United states slanders you.

This really seems almost insane to argue otherwise. Christ is this really how lost you are in tribalism? Take some time and reevaluate just what it is you believe.

The understanding of Slander of the sort of people that join gaming forums purely to talk politics is really something else.

[Lenonis]

kyle did not do a single thing wrong,

well that's objectively false. He purposely went to a dangerous area after expressing the desire to shoot people. He used a straw purchase to illegally obtain a gun. He fled the scene. He partied with proud boys when released.

Maybe stop trying to make a hero out of a kid with piss poor judgment eh?

[Yadryonych]

If you murder people you are not the victim. The people you murdered are the victims. I know the judge in this case seemed to have trouble with that despite the fact it's a very basic concept, so I guess it's understandable if people siding with white supremacists would also find it difficult.

Let me explain it the way you would understand.
Imagine Biden guarding the capitol with his favourite ar-15 on jan 6. Suddenly, a wild TRUMP appears and is rushing at him yelling "SHOOT ME BRANDON". Biden tries to run from him but then TRUMP catches him and tries to rob him of his beloved carbine. Biden is terrified realising he's about to lose this fight so he shoots TRUMP a few times. Is TRUMP still a victim in this case? But there's more, crazed MAGA crowd is mad after their fellow tribesman's death, few of them decide to chase poor Biden, with QANON SHAMAN and HITLER HIMSELF amongst them! QANON SHAMAN tries to crack Biden's skull with his trusted skateboard, but Biden withstands the deadly blow and shoots QANON SHAMAN right in his demonic QANON SHAMAN HEART. Startled for a while, HITLER HIMSELF pulls out his handgun, ready to shoot Biden in head, but our hero overcomes once again and EVAPORATES bicep of HITLER HIMSELF, emerging from this turmoil heroically.

Seeing all this tragedy unfolding before your eyes, are you still willing to call TRUMP, QANON SHAMAN and HITLER HIMSELF victims of Biden the "murderer"?

[Lenonis]

snip

I gotta give you conservatives credit. Your imagination is pretty wild.

[Chipped coin]

The understanding of Slander of the sort of people that join gaming forums purely to talk politics is really something else.

I am going to go out on a limb and say it is going to be extremely easy to show damages over the president defaming you as a white supremacist...

I get its something normal on Twitter but if they pushed I am pretty sure they would win.

[Hammerfest]

Even if Biden came right out and said, unequivocally and with no caveats, that Rittenhouse was a white supremacist, there wouldn't be grounds for defamation.

Well we'll see.

[Endus]

I am going to go out on a limb and say it is going to be extremely easy to show damages over the president defaming you as a white supremacist...

I get its something normal on Twitter but if they pushed I am pretty sure they would win.

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.

[Xyonai]

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.

Honestly if you could just up and sue someone for making you mad and/or sad then our current political discourse would be entirely nonexistent.

Still figuring out if that's a good or bad thing, actually. (joking, joking)

[The Oblivion]

well that's objectively false. He purposely went to a dangerous area after expressing the desire to shoot people. He used a straw purchase to illegally obtain a gun. He fled the scene. He partied with proud boys when released.

Maybe stop trying to make a hero out of a kid with piss poor judgment eh?

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.

- - - Updated - - -

If you murder people you are not the victim. The people you murdered are the victims. I know the judge in this case seemed to have trouble with that despite the fact it's a very basic concept, so I guess it's understandable if people siding with white supremacists would also find it difficult.

he defended his own life against violent criminals. very black and white case of self defense.

[JohnBrown1917]

I am going to go out on a limb and say it is going to be extremely easy to show damages over the president defaming you as a white supremacist...

I get its something normal on Twitter but if they pushed I am pretty sure they would win.

Its an opinion, you can't do shit.

[Lenonis]

you dont lose your right to go somewhere just because criminals will be present.

Sorry that has nothing to do with my point. Please post constructively.