Kyle Rittenhouse says he will sue Whoopi Goldberg

Post Reply New Topic

I think it is more realistic to say people should be at risk when they slander other people, without knowing the facts about a situation.

Plenty of slanderers get away with what they do for a whole variety of reasons, including the socioeconomic status of their victims, or the perpetrators finding loopholes in the legal system to get out of what they have done or are doing.

I think pacifism is reasonable in times of peace.

Unfortunately, the world is at war right now.

Russia want war - it is a possibility they funded Brexit & Trump to produce more anti-Russia western soldiers to kill. If you have a bunch of hippies in your enemy country (from a Russian perspective), you cannot go to war with those western hippes, nor profit from a war with those people.

Oh okay, but in Rittenhouse's example, when you are attacked by one guy using a skateboard as a weapon, and another guy pulling a gun on you, and another guy running to get you, I think it's okay, not to be pacifist in that situation as that doesn't seem like a situation of peace.

I think if Rittenhouse launches legal proceedings regardless of the outcome Whoopi's going to have to muzzle herself.

I think she's about ready to for pasture.

Yep.

Rittenhouse allowed himself to become a public figure. It is very difficult to slander a public figure. Then there is the issue of damages; he's been riding his fame for all it's worth, so damages would be difficult to prove. It feels like he's just trying to extend his 15 minutes; he has no case.

Does it bother me how toxic conversations have become in general, and how careless celebrities are with their words? Yes, it does. But the standards for public decency and the standards for winning a court case are not the same.

For the record, plenty of ordinary people use the word "murder" in ordinary conversation even in cases of self-defense and even in cases found "not guilty." To not do so takes a bunch of extra words. We don't have a word specific to what Rittenhouse did. So there is another defense.

Yes it seems counterintuitive doesn't it. My interpretation is that Rittenhouse is getting free legal help from a MAGA/conservative lawyer/legal team who see's this type of legal action as good publicity for their cause and even if it doesn't work out, Rittenhouse get's a chance to attack back the people who called him a murderer (he's also targeted the young Turks Cenk) without cost to himself (and the possibility of making millions) and the lawyers get an opportunity to drag "woke" high profile lefties and media through the mud. As far as they see its a win win.

If the left didn't label Rittenhouse a murderer, then they wouldn't have made a 'hero' out of him for the right to recruit as a result. The left shouldn't have commented on this case at all that way they wouldn't have given the right their ammunition.

Trial by media is unconscionable, and yet they never learn.

Oh okay. Well what I don't understand about left and right politics, is how does say the left decide on who's side they are on if that person ends up killing three people in self defense? Does someone high up in the democratic party decide if they will be on against this person, and then passes the word down, and then everyone else on the left, loyal to the democratic party follows, even if they do not personally agree?

Never kill a POC, and you should be fine with the Democrats, usually.
If you are going to kill someone, make sure they are white guys, but also make sure they aren't antifa white guys.
This was Rittenhouse's mistake. <satire>

Lol but in all seriousness Rittenhouse killed three white guys and he still became an enemy of the democrats.

Well Rosenbaum was being racist prior to he getting shot
https://www.reuters.com/world/us/man-ki ... 021-11-05/

Hardly makes him "antifa" does it. I don't think Grosskreutz or Huber were affiliated to any group either.

What part of SATIRE don't you understand?

No, he *shot* 3 people.
He killed 2 people.

I think that it is worth pointing out that without all the investigation that fed into the trial, it was not knowable that this was a case of self-defense. There were some people claiming it was, and others claiming it was not. The witnesses on the scene seemed to mostly see Rittenhouse as an aggressor and perpetrator. It isn't fair to take a conclusion that was reached after a year of investigations and weeks of trial, and try to superimpose that on minds at the time of the event. What we know now is not what was known by anyone then.

At the time of the event, what was known was that two people were dead at Rittenhouse's hands, and another injured. It was known that he had shown up to a protest fully armed with a weapon most Democrats don't believe should even be legal to carry. I don't think ulterior political motives were needed for the term "murder" to get applied at that point in time. How did the Democrats decide who to be against at that point in time? The guy with the riffle who killed two people; the natural and obvious first reaction conclusion, really.

Even following the trail, there were many people who still felt the actions had been murder. They watched the same evidence the rest of us did, and reached a different conclusion than the jury did. When people are dead, it's human nature to want to place blame and have someone pay the price. As much as I do feel reporting and politics fed into the perceptions, the divided response would likely have existed regardless. I don't see how it could not have. Rittenhouse's trail was a difficult and nuanced case, and no one will ever be held responsible for two deaths. That result can be a hard truth for people to accept, even if it was the right result.