22 Feb 2022, 4:03 pm
Sweetleaf wrote:
blitzkrieg wrote:
Sweetleaf wrote:
Most people don't get to shoot 3 people to death and then just walk away with no legal consequences.
BLM protestors who are burning down buildings and looting should not be chasing cops who are armed with guns. That is called being stupid.
Kyle Rittenhouse wasn't a cop, even if he was role-playing as one. He shouldn't have been marching around with a gun around there he should have stayed away and let the cops do their job...if anything he also put them in danger by acting recklessly.
Rittenhouse was defending himself.
This was the official verdict of the court.
Deal with it.
22 Feb 2022, 4:05 pm
funeralxempire wrote:
Does Rittenhouse think he can silence everyone who calls a murderer a murderer?
The court determined it was self-defence.
Therefore, he is not deemed to be a murderer.
It ain't rocket surgery.
22 Feb 2022, 4:09 pm
funeralxempire wrote:
blitzkrieg wrote:
funeralxempire wrote:
Does Rittenhouse think he can silence everyone who calls a murderer a murderer?
Killing someone in self-defense is technically not murder. At least within the American justice system.
If you can call someone who's terminated a pregnancy a murderer you can call Rittenhouse a murderer.
*I* don't "call someone who's terminated a pregnancy a murderer ".
Hoo is the person to which you refer?
Your premise seems to be: Anything anyone says is valid.
Your premise is invalid.
22 Feb 2022, 4:14 pm
League_Girl wrote:
funeralxempire wrote:
blitzkrieg wrote:
funeralxempire wrote:
Does Rittenhouse think he can silence everyone who calls a murderer a murderer?
Killing someone in self-defense is technically not murder. At least within the American justice system.
If you can call someone who's terminated a pregnancy a murderer you can call Rittenhouse a murderer.
Good point, the women can start suing anyone who calls them a murderer for having an abortion.
Don't call women who have an abortion a murderer.
Simples.
If they do, sue the *uckers.
It ain't brain rocketeering.
Who says both accusers can't be sued?
Go for it.
Enjoy the journey.
22 Feb 2022, 4:15 pm
funeralxempire
Veteran
Joined: 27 Oct 2014
Age: 39
Gender: Non-binary
Posts: 25,504
Location: Right over your left shoulder
22 Feb 2022, 4:19 pm
22 Feb 2022, 4:19 pm
blitzkrieg wrote:
League_Girl wrote:
funeralxempire wrote:
blitzkrieg wrote:
funeralxempire wrote:
Does Rittenhouse think he can silence everyone who calls a murderer a murderer?
Killing someone in self-defense is technically not murder. At least within the American justice system.
If you can call someone who's terminated a pregnancy a murderer you can call Rittenhouse a murderer.
Good point, the women can start suing anyone who calls them a murderer for having an abortion.
I think this is perfectly reasonable.
It should be illegal to call a woman a murderer for having an abortion. I fully agree.
What reasonable person wouldn't agree?
I thought something like that would already be illegal.
Quote:
slander
noun: slander
the action or crime of making a false spoken statement damaging to a person's reputation.
noun: slander
the action or crime of making a false spoken statement damaging to a person's reputation.
Quote:
Libel
noun
noun: libel; plural noun: libels
1.
Law
a published false statement that is damaging to a person's reputation; a written defamation.
noun
noun: libel; plural noun: libels
1.
Law
a published false statement that is damaging to a person's reputation; a written defamation.
22 Feb 2022, 4:20 pm
blitzkrieg wrote:
I agree with Pepe.
Wot reasonable person wouldn't?
22 Feb 2022, 4:24 pm
funeralxempire wrote:
blitzkrieg wrote:
funeralxempire wrote:
I think that's going a bit too far in limiting speech, especially given that murder has broader meanings and usages than just in a criminal justice context.
Whether it's Rittenhouse, or OJ Simpson or cops and soldiers "just following orders" or pretty much anyone else who's taken a human life, I don't feel the state is entitled to punish people for defining a killing as murder even if that killing doesn't meet the state's definition. Further, I don't think punishing people is a viable response because that will just encourage more of it.
Whether it's Rittenhouse, or OJ Simpson or cops and soldiers "just following orders" or pretty much anyone else who's taken a human life, I don't feel the state is entitled to punish people for defining a killing as murder even if that killing doesn't meet the state's definition. Further, I don't think punishing people is a viable response because that will just encourage more of it.
It is a complex issue I guess. In some cases it is appropriate to punish, and in others it is not, depending on the severity of loss incurred by affected parties.
Definitely, there's competing interests - among them freedom of speech. One always has to consider how restrictions can be used to harm interests and causes one supports under the assumption those restrictions can be applied in many scenarios, not just the one unfolding at the time they're passed.
Rittenhouse won his criminal case, his actions were found to have not met the legal definition. Unfortunately for him lots of people who haven't been found guilty of murder are still seen as murderers by reasonable people and therefore his claims of being defamed likely won't stand up.
He gets to deal with the consequences of his actions and one of those consequences is forever being tainted by association with the violence he perpetrated.
One word: Nick Sandmann
Ok, two words.
Quote:
The Washington Post settles lawsuit with Nick Sandmann after viral March for Life controversy
https://edition.cnn.com/2020/07/24/medi ... index.html
22 Feb 2022, 4:27 pm
funeralxempire
Veteran
Joined: 27 Oct 2014
Age: 39
Gender: Non-binary
Posts: 25,504
Location: Right over your left shoulder
22 Feb 2022, 4:31 pm
22 Feb 2022, 4:40 pm
funeralxempire wrote:
blitzkrieg wrote:
funeralxempire wrote:
blitzkrieg wrote:
funeralxempire wrote:
I think that's going a bit too far in limiting speech, especially given that murder has broader meanings and usages than just in a criminal justice context.
Whether it's Rittenhouse, or OJ Simpson or cops and soldiers "just following orders" or pretty much anyone else who's taken a human life, I don't feel the state is entitled to punish people for defining a killing as murder even if that killing doesn't meet the state's definition. Further, I don't think punishing people is a viable response because that will just encourage more of it.
Whether it's Rittenhouse, or OJ Simpson or cops and soldiers "just following orders" or pretty much anyone else who's taken a human life, I don't feel the state is entitled to punish people for defining a killing as murder even if that killing doesn't meet the state's definition. Further, I don't think punishing people is a viable response because that will just encourage more of it.
It is a complex issue I guess. In some cases it is appropriate to punish, and in others it is not, depending on the severity of loss incurred by affected parties.
Definitely, there's competing interests - among them freedom of speech. One always has to consider how restrictions can be used to harm interests and causes one supports under the assumption those restrictions can be applied in many scenarios, not just the one unfolding at the time they're passed.
Rittenhouse won his criminal case, his actions were found to have not met the legal definition. Unfortunately for him lots of people who haven't been found guilty of murder are still seen as murderers by reasonable people and therefore his claims of being defamed likely won't stand up.
He gets to deal with the consequences of his actions and one of those consequences is forever being tainted by association with the violence he perpetrated.
Even if he is a murderer or someone who has been tainted by an association with violence - he has the right to challenge his detractors via court of law.
He has to have a solid case, which he doesn't and I've given other real world examples of how people have been called murderers and not been able to challenge it as defamatory.
The fact that some posters on here believe their own internal logic trumps the logic used out in the real world doesn't mean Rittenhouse has any case because the trial won't be held here.
I find *your* particular logic fascinating.
22 Feb 2022, 4:53 pm
22 Feb 2022, 5:06 pm
22 Feb 2022, 5:35 pm
blitzkrieg wrote:
Well, I may be wrong, but only time will tell. I would put my money on Rittenhouse winning any defamation court case (in the real world) if I had a stake in or anything to gain from, Rittenhouse winning, which I do not.
I will be buying Rittenhouse shares as soon as the stock market opens today.
22 Feb 2022, 5:41 pm
