Rittenhouse wants Biden to Apologise to him

Post Reply New Topic

It's interesting to see you so willing to believe the words of a person who has stated in the past that "black" people are either unintelligent, or are lazy (with no third option suggested), merely because what they stated is what you desire to be true...


Source: https://www.minclaw.com/illinois-defamation-law-state-guide/

Given he then lived (and still lives) in illinois, this would be the likely jurisdiction:


In order to file a defamation (libel) suit:


There may be statute of limitations issues around this case which could affect it, but otherwise I'm not seeing much which could prevent him launching such a case.

I do have legal background, both professionally, and as a special interest.

Slander and libel are pretty easy to dodge, if you know how. The easiest way is to state it as an opinion, and keep it vaguely defined. It has to be a verifiable claim, one way or the other. "He's a thief!" doesn't carry the same gravitas as "he's a loser!". This is why you can't sue people over "trash talk". Theft is a crime, and is defined by certain objective actions. "Being a loser" is not illegal, is a meaningless judgement insecure people hurl at others, and generally cannot be proven in an objective manner.

Then there's the Tucker Carlson method, where you ask it as a question, and then offer to explore the question that nobody but them was asking. It starts out great, letting them pass the blame by implying that THEY didn't ask the question, "PEOPLE" are asking this question, and they're simply exploring the idea on THEIR behalf. It then also gives the liberty to look at any situation through the assumption that "this has something to do with it", even if it doesn't.

Kyle is a dumb kid. ALL kids are dumb kids. No offense, kids. I am not excluded from this. Kids already have delusions of invulnerability. Death is too far away, and they've not yet really experienced any serious injury or harm, so they boldly dash into really stupid situations. That's why armies like 'em young. More balls than brains.

Now add the fact that Kyle came away unharmed, and literally got away with murder. He probably feels like an invincible hero. And I'm sure he's got people blowing plenty of hot up air up his arse. Right now he's a handy sock puppet for a lot of ideologies to parade around as a champion of their cause - and cos he's just a dumb kid, he has no idea of the broader scope of what he's now a part of. He's likely got all manner of voices whispering in his ear telling him he should do this or do that, saying all manner of nice things to make him feel important, because all you need to do to get obedience from a dumb kid is to be really nice to them, and give them stuff.

18 years old, and the only noteworthy thing he's done, is kill someone and get away with it, and now he's is ready to take on the world? He's in for some big surprises as this continues to play out.

↑ This, quoted for truth.

It is sad that his entire claim to fame can be summed up so well in three short paragraphs.

Who was found "not guilty" on charges of murder\attempted murder (by way of self defence), and hence is not a murderer.

It's a rather simple concept that even a child could understand - not sure why it is so difficult for you to do so...:

Source: https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/murderer

So, we go to the definition of "murder":

Source: https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/murders

The use of the word "killer" may have been apprpriate in the initial comment: as he was found to have not committed "the crime of deliberately killing a person" (by reason of self defence), by a jury of his peers, he is by extension not a murderer.

Interestingly, given this is a discussion about Mr Rittenhouse being defamed, under the law of the state he lives in (and so would be able launch suit for defamation), reference to him as a murderer (following the verdict) could fit under "Libel Per Se":

Source: https://www.minclaw.com/illinois-defamation-law-state-guide/
There also appears to be limited protection for "anonymous" speech in these cases in that state...

You've made that claim before. I'd be curious to see the instance you're referring to. I'm sure you have evidence.
After all, you wouldn't expect someone else to just take your word for it just cos it's what you want to believe.

Oh and do please link the thread, so it can be viewed in context. It would be unfortunate if you were to misquote me, and leave out the surrounding details so it looked the way you wanted it to look. After all, if I said "Racists be like 'black people are lazy or stupid', racists can't help but be like that." you could easily just copy that middle part out, and then yes I did technically literally "post those words", but you'd have seriously changed the meaning by leaving the beginning and end out.

Not to mention, even if we humored your silly fantasy, and pretended that I was literally the worst racist in the worst way, that in no way precludes me from being able to interpret law. So, really you're just trying to attack me, in the hopes that it discredits my words. Pretty sure that's an ad-hominem, right? Leegawl Egzburt?

Is Brictoria either making things up, or taking things out of context for their benefit? I don't know. I'm not an oracle. But I DO know, in the two or three times they've made that silly claim, I've asked for them to show me, for my own education, where I have ever said such a thing, and they never have actually shown me. Are they just making shite up about people? Gaslighting? Maybe, maybe not. I'll let people make up their own minds.

See, for the kids at home, I couldn't sue Brictoria for libel, since One, they can "believe" whatever they want, and if they genuinely believe that, then it's not stated intentionally as a falsehood, even if it IS stated intentionally as an attack on my character, and Two, I'd have to actually suffer some type of loss, which isn't a likely result from anything said on this forum. My PrEcIoUs LiTtLe FeElInGs aren't even hurt So I'd really have no case.

So as a reminder

Illinois defamation plaintiffs must prove and present facts showing the defendant:

Made a false statement about the plaintiff;
Made an unprivileged publication of that statement to a third-party; &
The publication caused damages.

"Your hurt feelings" don't count as "damages". This includes "it makes me sound bad", "I don't like it", "it COULD hurt my image" (but hasn't actually done so yet - you can't sue for damages that haven't happened) "It COULD have damaged me in ways we can't know! (so you're just claiming imaginary bullsh!t now)" or other forms of emotional spinelessness. If you had a business, did you lose business directly because of it? Now prove it. Were you denied a job or a loan or other opportunity directly as a result of it? Now prove it. Not "prove that you COULD have, or MIGHT have", prove that you DID.

Right now Kyle seems to be gaining lots of friends and being given lots of opportunities. Where's the actual loss that occurred?

It's kinda cute, watching Brictoria pretend to be "Da Forum Judge" like in Kyle's case, and "forbid" the use of certain words, like "victim" or "murder". Leegal Exshperkt!

Ok then, how about we just call him a death-dealer? Life-ender? Soul-snuffer? Late term abortionist? OR we could just go with the classic and call him a "shooter". He does shoot, and he did shoot someone, the courts established that he did legally SHOOT someone. Is "shooter ok? Does "Da Judge" approve of any of these terms in this Highest of Internet Courts?

The moderators are well aware of what has been going on, so just keep hitting that 'Report' button, and sooner or later they will have to take action.

Fascinating watching the back and forth of hyper legal terminology vs colloquialism according to political whim, it almost looks dishonest.

If taking other posters out of context were against the rules, 80%+ of this forum would have been banned, including the mods.

It is interesting (and insightful) to see the people who are happy to release their inner authoritarian in an effort to silence anyone who does not agree with them, though, isn't it.

There's actually an interesting question there, I myself have had an often contentious relationship with some of the moderators here over the years, and go back and forth on where I think intervention is appropriate, as sometimes I feel like I'd be less combative with other members if I could rely on the mods to consistently enforce something like the group disparagement rules, but at the same time I know that if they really enforced that rule, we'd be even more of a ghost town than we already are. It's even trickier when you get into stuff like lying or playing dumb, it's not against the rules per se, but it pisses people off and causes trouble that otherwise wouldn't occur, and calling out the liar is often going to come close to the line against personal attacks, but is the mod supposed to punish the person who called out the lie, or the liar themself? We're certainly lucky that our current mods are relatively laid back, in the late 00s when I first joined, troublemakers just seemed to get permabanned on whims with no real communication, where as now you really seem to have to work for it, and you'll get plenty of warning first.

Brictoria, not guilty by reason of self-defense or not, two people are dead by Rittenhouse’s hand. This isn’t a court of law, so posters aren’t required to adhere to a strict legal definition of murder. In street language, to many people, what Rittenhouse did was murder. He pointed his gun at two people and took their lives. While I’ve been careful to say “dead by his hand” instead of murdered, we aren’t writing court opinions here, nor delivering case summaries to millions of people, and I don’t think we should expect other posters to avoid a term that, self-defense or not, they feel expresses what happened. People get annoyed when they get picked at like that; better to leave it alone. JHMO.

It’s been a while since I looked at the footage, but my conclusion in the way back was that Rittenhouse was only one screen flash in much broader video that wasn’t only about white supremacy. Biden and his team had no control over the fact the footage displayed with Rittenhouse front and center; when you tweet a video you don’t pick the frozen screen shot.

In my opinion, the video choice was slimy, but he never called Rittenhouse a white supremecist.

A lot of ego on that teen, IMHO, to suggest he would like a sit down with the president to discuss his case. His case is just not that important in the grand scheme of things, especially since it did get resolved appropriately. The system worked. The story is supposed to end here.

It would actually be nice if the President would meet with Rittenhouse.

Biden is not some bleeding-heart. He’s a very pragmatic man. Maybe he could talk some sense into Rittenhouse.

It might also provide a counterpoint to a meeting with Trump.

I don’t believe a libel case against Biden would lead to a positive result for Rittenhouse.

I would agree, but when those same people want to get very legalistic and technical about defamation, it sort of opens them up to the charge of being careless with murderer. Also, you have to admit at this point, the bad information and bad takes have largely been a one way street here, the BS has all gone in the same direction.

If Rittenhouse was acquitted at trial of murder, he’s not a murderer.

We don’t have to stop calling him a fool, though.

I think he has his eye on making money out of his notoriety (like the "cash me outside" teen who used her infamy on Dr Phil to launch a music career).

I keep going back to Nicholas Sandmann as he is likely to become a millionaire from bullying an older native american on national TV and suing media outlets for defamation. The sock puppet anology is correct, both of these teens have become sock puppets for those who are pushing an anti-progressive agenda.