Umm, your side still has people who don't believe in elections anymore, but someone having a bad take on this kid is a threat to democracy?
Rittenhouse trial is over before it begins
- Thread starter Crazyhole
- Start date
When did you learn that Kyle didnt take a gun across state lines and shoot black people?
I dont know, I wasnt fully engrossed in this until the trial. When did you learn Trump lost the election?
You have posted all kinds of shit questionining the election and you damn well know it. So if the left wing media should be banned becuase of Rittenhouse, then I assume right wing media should also be banned for lying about the elecion yes? Or are "morals" ok as long as our country is just right wing liars?
I'm fine with getting rid of media sources like OAN and GP that pushed the false narrative.
Ok, then who gets to approve of what media sources pass the test then? And it isnt just OAN, Tucker is the most watched prime time news show, and he most certainly talks about it, this isnt outlier stuff. So should Tucker be banned?
Is GP Gateway Pundit? Dont you post links to them all the time on here?
Hey , the fricken media gets it wrong constantly and jumps the gun on so many of these high profile events. They basically tried and convicted the Duke kids, cops in Baltimore, Ferguson and more. They destroyed the life Richard Jewell. They attempted to destroy the Covington kid.
They have a narrative and jump to it immediately before any facts or forensics are in and then they whip it up and their allies like BLM and Antifa into a frenzy . They are advocates now damned be the science and evidence . They are also getting it wrong on this covid stuff ,not a one questioning CDC,Fauci ,FDA or Biden. They are puppets and nothing more than American Provda. I HOPE Riitenhouse sure the crap out of CNN et Al and sues the President too. They are irresponsible every last one of them.
The kid ran away multiple times and was chased even after brandishing his weapon . If you ask me the guy that attacked him and was shot and killed was the idiot here. it was clear by the video he attacked the kid even knowing Kyle was armed . so, the media absolutely sucks . they do and they can be sued for liable and slander and in this case they should be . I think the kid wins too if he does.
I dont think ive ever linked to a GP article. As far as Tucker, he reports on unknowns but doesn't seem to make claims unless it's a known fact. You may disagree with what he says, but the guy doesn't just spew lies, unlike the left wing media. They love to lie.
That suit just has to meet preponderance of the evidence. The problem is that the media has a shield when it comes to commenting on public figures and KR would have to convince the judge to let the suit proceed. Which the Covington kid did. It’s a tough one because KR was in no way a public figure until his self-defense and media coverage of that shouldn’t give them the ability to claim that he’s then a public figure.
You are so full of it. So blaming the power grid situation in Texas on the Green New deal wasnt a lie? The Green New deal hasnt even passed. Blaming litter in the Potomac River exclusively on immigrants isnt a lie? Saying John Bolton is a leftist isnt a lie? Saying more children die in bath tubs than buy guns? Not to mention his entire premise of Jan 6th.
“I guess I would ask myself, like, I mean, I lie if I’m cornered or something. I lie. I really try not to. I try never to lie on TV. I just don’t — I don’t like lying. I certainly do it, you know, out of weakness or whatever, but to systematically lie like that, without asking yourself, why am I doing this?”
Guess who said that above quote and literally admitted he lies?
He isnt going to be able to win any suits. He did kill people, he was on trial, etc etc. This isnt like the Covington situation. If he is able to win a lawsuit in this situation, then it basically means the media will just have to quit commenting on trials altogether.
You also didnt answer my question. Who gets to determine acceptable media sources? Sounds pretty Mussolini-esque.
And yet it explains why he was there, acosting and assault people, well before Rittenhouse; a bi-polar threat to society that even the state says was non-compliant with the terms of his sex offender registration, and documented by state provided psychologists, including that very day.
He threatened everyone, even protestors, and finally cornered a kid, and grabbed his gun. Why? Because he couldn't buy one.
The Media needs to stop defending that piece of shit first and foremost.
So the Mass Media is allowed to lie about the evidence?
I don't think he'd win any money in a lawsuit, but he has a legitimate gripe.
He would have to prove damages, and I dont see how anyone who is getting high profile internship offers that he isnt qualifed for and things of that nature can argue he was somehow damaged. My guess is this actually ends up being a net benefit to him, so I am not sure what the argument against the media would be.
Even Zimmerman got NBC to admit they violated his civil liberties in a court of law. NBC just wasn't held liable, fiscally, because they fired the 2 producers who did it within 48 hours.
Do you understand what I'm saying here? We're entering an age where people are arguing for what is, essentially, gulags. They aren't even hiding it, they want the Soviet system, including gulags.
You called for toning down rhetoric, yet you're doing this. Understand we had a vigiliante with a gun ... he was the 3rd man Rittenhouse shot.
It doesn't matter if peopel have a gun or use anything else as a weapon, if you acost, assauilt and batter/harm people, you are the criminal.
You're fully of hyperbole. Please stop.
DO you read posts I am responding to for context? Also Crazy said he was for my "hyperbolic" scenario, so not it isnt hyperbole when the person I was talking back and forth with admits he is ok with the scenario I laid out.
Darn tootin I'm OK with it. Democrat mayors and governors have let mobs destroy property and loot businesses for so long these derelicts think it's OK. It's time for people that love their community to step into the role that the libs have decided to abandon. Patriots with guns seems like the only plausible solution to a government that turns a blind eye to crime.
A few points in response:
KR is not a public figure for purposes of defamation. Just because everyone knows who he is does not make him a public figure. He didn’t intentionally put himself into the public consciousness—the media did that by covering the case. That means the standard he has to prove is only negligence.
The media can cover trials, they just can’t negligently make statements of facts about a defendant which are not true. Ex: KR is a white supremacist; KR was an active shooter/domestic terrorist. Based on the evidence those statements are demonstrably false.
The offer of an internship does not eliminate a claim for damage. He can prove mental and emotional damage from being labeled a murderer/racist and that should be sufficient to merit some monetary damages.
The challenge is always distinguishing statements of facts from statements of opinion. Opinion is protected speech, false statements of fact are not.
He was on trial for murder. If people, including the media, arent allowed to have opinions on ongoing cases, then the result is going to be that cases arent covered by the media, which is a slippery slope. And yes, some of those opnions and analysis might not be in line with what the jury decides, but people are allowed to see things differently than the jury. If what you are saying is true, then OJ should have sued half the country after his trial. I also dont see how you can prove he isnt a racist. He took pictures with proud boys and things of that nature, so people are allowed to have their opinions on things like that.
OJ was a public figure so he had no way of suing for defamation. And media can comment all they want on the case, but to slander Kyle personally is cause for a lawsuit. They can say he was wrongfully acquitted, but they can't call him a murderous white supremacist.
I ask one thing from the press: report facts. Many do not do this or simply obfuscate various matters to push a narrative/opinion. We've seen this time and time again when it comes to various coverage of trials. And it's kind of funny because these idiots sell a narrative pre-trial, then the trial actually happens and we find out what really happened. Rinse, repeat, recycle.
Public figures can most certainly sue for defamation, it might be more dificult, but it can happen. It wasnt proven/disproven whether he is a white supremacist, and again, a lot of the stuff came from the pictures and celebrities flocking to him before the trial. It wasnt the media that posted pictures of him with the proud boys and things of that nature.
I have no issues with criticizing the media, but lawsuits are another issue. But also keep in mind, trials arent perfect. Mistakes can, and often are made. Judges can make decisions that we can agree/disagree with, etc. Plus in this case, what would the lawsuit even be about? Seems like a tough argument to say people calling him a murderer has caused him emotional issues, because was on trial for murder. The medial didnt put him on trial, the justice system did.
It wasn't proven/disproven is a ridiculous standard. If the media came out and started running stories about you being a white supremacist, don't you think you should be able to sue them? Or since it can't be disproven you should just have to deal with the slander?
If there are pictures of me looking like I am celebrating out in public, with members of a group that are associated with white supremacists, then people are allowed to make of that what they will.
Slander has always been tough to prove, because a lot of what people consider slander, is nothing more than an opinion. We are allowed to have different opinions on things. I dont see how you can fault the media for bringing up the white supremacy angle, when we know he hangs out with white supremacists.
Last edited:
Judges don't deliver verdicts--juries do. But you know that. And in terms of the media not putting him on trial, how many people in the last 10 years have been put on a proverbial trial by the press? You can't act like this doesn't happen. The media gets to say what they want and defame the character of people they don't like and rarely (if ever) apologize or detract a statement.
Loosen up the defamation laws. The crap they spewed about Rittenhouse is so disgusting it should sicken people. Yet, it will be very hard for him to hold them accountable because all news is "opinion" now.
"Kyle Rittenhouse, the teenager charged with killing two people during protests in Kenosha, Wisconsin, over the summer, was recently spotted drinking at a bar and posing for photos with apparent Proud Boys sympathizers after being released from jail on $2 million bond, prosecutors say."
Apparent proud boy sympathizers is a far cry from evidence that he is a white supremacist.
Apparent proud boy sympathizers is a far cry from evidence that he is a white supremacist.
How do you know that? Because of a picture?
Maybe someday you can be famous, even if reluctantly like Rittenhouse. Then you will see how people just want to take a picture with you everywhere you go.
Use your brain.
No but judges make decisions throughout a case that can impact the jury decision.
But how did they defame his character? He shot 3 people and killed two. This is the crux of the case and these are facts. The debate was whether it was self defense or not. As I have said, I dont have an issue with the verdict. But I also think it is ok if others do have an issue with it, and I think we should be allowed to talk about it.
The question isnt how do I know it, the question is how do you not know it. Defamation cases arent easy to win. When you have a guy who showed up at a BLM protest, has taken pictures with white supremacists, has a picuture flashing the white power sign, etc etc, then yeah, we are allowed to think he might very well be a white supremacist.
Yes they are facts. In this article, nowhere did it claim he or anyone else was a white supremacist. Other media outlets have gone the next step though and say it is proof that he is one, when no evidence exists whatsoever that it is a factual allegation.
