Kyle Rittenhouse | Now crowdfunding LOLsuits against Whoopi Goldberg, LeBron James, and The Young Turks

TheRedHearted

Full Member
Joined
Aug 22, 2016
Messages
1,429
Location
New York, NY
On balance we also have:
  • All his character witnesses for being nice that day were from people biased to his side - boogaloo boi Ryan Balch and other members of his ad-hoc militia group, right-wing website contributor from Daily Caller, his own long-time friend who he traveled there with - hardly objective observers and all people with the incentive to paint Rittenhouse in the best light possible.
  • Private militia groups are technically illegal. It's a bit grey area for ad-hoc groups like the boogaloo bois and Kenosha Guard that night but they do violate the intent of established law at the least. As the woman said on video "protect your property, not the streets." This group was essentially an armed gang that could easily provoke reactions as noted. Anyone in that position should have known that or that no business being out there.
  • Rittenhouse had no training or experience to operate safely in such an environment.
  • He lied about being EMT that night.
  • He admitted no one actually asked him for medical help that night (he supplied some gauze earlier that day).
  • As photos show, his tiny "medical" bag isn't prominent and was completely irrelevant with him marching around with an AR-15 at the ready.
  • He lied about what he was even doing before any of the incidents claiming he was just looking for Balch but the video evidence contradicts this.
  • He had no valid reason for any of his actions prior to the incidents when he knew his mere presence with an AR-15 at the ready would threaten, intimidate and provoke the protestors especially when he was following a group that allegedly already threatened him. Why follow such a group? He had no valid explanation or reason.
  • He admitted he couldn't even provide "medical assistance" while maintaining his AR-15 and only planned to provide medical when someone else could "protect" him, which means he had no business walking around alone that night with an AR-15 at the ready before the incidents.
  • He didn't have to shoot the first victim a 2nd, 3rd, 4th time because he had already incapacitated the victim after the first shot.
  • He lied on the witnesses stand about the crowd saying "get him" after the incident when in fact that did not happen and he had time to make a phone and stand over the victim NOT providing medical assistance as he claims he was there to do.
  • He lied that night when he said the victim had a gun.
  • The crowd only tried to capture him when he fled from the scene of the crime, not an unreasonable or unexpected reaction considering what just happened.
  • Rosenbaum might have been a bad person but 17-year-old Rittenhouse was as well, physically punching a woman in the back, wishing he had an AR-15 to shoot shoplifters, posted on social media being completely brainwashed by Fox News, and posing afterward with the Proud Boys flashing white power hand signals.
  • Beyond the facts of this case, which establish reckless homicide and reckless endangerment, there are other dangers here beyond just this case.
So he has lied multiple times to make himself look better both that night and on the stand. Impossible to take anything he says as truthful after so many lies and his fake crocodile tears.

Allowing "self-defense" to get him off on all charges also sets a dangerous precedent. What happens if two armed groups of private militia (say the boogaloo bois and the NFAC have an armed stand-off? The precedent here would be that both sides could just shoot at the other with impunity because both sides "feel" threatened and in danger of their lives.
About self defense, no it doesnt. One of those would have to charge or raise a gun or do something like Rosenbaum did. That’s a very poor argument
 

Stacks

Full Member
Joined
Jul 10, 2015
Messages
9,297
Location
Between a rock and Gibraltar
Kind of how I felt it was obvious he wouldn't go down and would be deemed self defence. especially when the dude admitting Kyle did not fire until Grosskreutz pointed his gun at him from 5 feet away. To me it was a "slam dunk." I also hate how politicised this has become as opposed to focusing on the legal. Also how many white people aren't even mad he popped 3 white dudes and its turned into a "black issue."

 

Peter van der Gea

Likes Pineapple on well done Steak
Joined
Feb 17, 2018
Messages
1,793
BLM is nothing more than regurgitated Marxist garbage, but that should be for another thread, no?
You are a fool, or at least your post is. Criticise the post, not the poster. I'll take the infraction.
If you think it’s a bad “political take” then let’s go to a different thread to discuss.

As for BLM being Marxist, it’s very easy to verify
Verify it then.
No, i said he would have fallen for their propaganda. I was not comparing him to them.

But on the other hand, how is comparing someone to Nazis connected to white supremacy? Isn't the left wing especially calling most right wingers exactly that?
By saying he would have fallen for it, you are literally comparing the situations and mindsets. Just cos you're saying you're not doesn't mean you aren't.
Thread focus has been lost. Let’s take the “militia/arms/BLM” discussion somewhere else
You took it there with your weak assed arguments
 

Carolina Red

Moderator
Staff
Joined
Nov 7, 2015
Messages
30,970
Location
South Carolina
You are a fool, or at least your post is. Criticise the post, not the poster. I'll take the infraction.

Verify it then.

By saying he would have fallen for it, you are literally comparing the situations and mindsets. Just cos you're saying you're not doesn't mean you aren't.

You took it there with your weak assed arguments
He's not gonna be able to respond.
 

Stacks

Full Member
Joined
Jul 10, 2015
Messages
9,297
Location
Between a rock and Gibraltar

Watching Jimmy Dore and saw this documentary basically setting out the events

Holy crap he got it spot on 7 months ago
I remember people were claiming Rosenbaum said the n-bomb and it was being denied on twitter. He seems a bit unhinged.
This video seems to show Kyle helping people and protecting his city from rioters but I am seeing in this thread and the "liberal media" that he was there purely to protest BLM and support white supremacy. this video makes him look innocent as feck.
 
Last edited:

Stacks

Full Member
Joined
Jul 10, 2015
Messages
9,297
Location
Between a rock and Gibraltar
Mental that so many people online are trying to push the possibility of lawsuits for defamation.

It's obvious that any negative commentary is protected under the 1st Amendment and any lies will not have caused damages that the court can compensate for.

No doubt the evidence shows that he was innocent of murder because it was self defense, but killing 2 people and maiming a third is what has damaged his reputation, along with the prosecution, whether justified or not is going to cause damage.

It's a question of further lies preventing the rehabilitation of perception from this point that would be actionable.
high profile politicians were calling him a white supremacist and stating he went there to prevent BLM from having a protest and then killed 2 'heroes' who were on the side of justice. Probably has a case
:lol: Idiots.

Thanks for sharing
They turned on Trump when he told them that storming capitol = bad
 

Drainy

Full Member
Joined
May 5, 2009
Messages
12,823
Location
Dissin' Your Flygirl
high profile politicians were calling him a white supremacist and stating he went there to prevent BLM from having a protest and then killed 2 'heroes' who were on the side of justice. Probably has a case

They turned on Trump when he told them that storming capitol = bad
He absolutely doesn't have a case for anything that was said so far.

His mother might due to the smears being factual and damaging (saying she drove him with his gun to a riot), rather than a matter of opinion (white supremacist and reason why he was there), but even then she is probably a limited purpose public figure so they would have to prove actual malice.

With Rittenhouse, even if they were lies he is a public figure, its public interest to discuss him and its very arguable that he is incapable of being defamed since his reputation is so shot by charged with murder. Additionally politicians get protections from their office (like how in the UK something said in parliament isn't actionable) from what I understand.
 

Stacks

Full Member
Joined
Jul 10, 2015
Messages
9,297
Location
Between a rock and Gibraltar
He absolutely doesn't have a case for anything that was said so far.

His mother might due to the smears being factual and damaging (saying she drove him with his gun to a riot), rather than a matter of opinion (white supremacist and reason why he was there), but even then she is probably a limited purpose public figure so they would have to prove actual malice.

With Rittenhouse, even if they were lies he is a public figure, its public interest to discuss him and its very arguable that he is incapable of being defamed since his reputation is so shot by charged with murder. Additionally politicians get protections from their office (like how in the UK something said in parliament isn't actionable) from what I understand.
It matters as his opposition have framed him as a Nazi who was there to stop BLM and ended up killing their supporters out of hate. Joe Biden compared him to a white supremacist, Colin Kaep mentioned it, Representative Ayanna Pressley called him that. you can't just throw labels on people ESPECIALLY as a politician because you rile people up even more and create an environment where people will not look at the legal aspect and see this as a simple fight against white supremacy. People are literally marching now claiming "white supremacy wins again" and the politicians stoked these flames. Its not their job. Thats not what you get hired for. Sowing seeds of division
 

Drainy

Full Member
Joined
May 5, 2009
Messages
12,823
Location
Dissin' Your Flygirl
It matters as his opposition have framed him as a Nazi who was there to stop BLM and ended up killing their supporters out of hate. Joe Biden compared him to a white supremacist, Colin Kaep mentioned it, Representative Ayanna Pressley called him that. you can't just throw labels on people ESPECIALLY as a politician because you rile people up even more and create an environment where people will not look at the legal aspect and see this as a simple fight against white supremacy. People are literally marching now claiming "white supremacy wins again" and the politicians stoked these flames. Its not their job. Thats not what you get hired for. Sowing seeds of division
I've watched enough drama LOLsuits on the internet to know how US defamation works now :lol:

He doesn't have a case for the reasons I have previously stated and depending on which state he sues in could end up paying fees and costs due to anti-SLAPP legislation.

People think he has a lot of money that was raised, but $2m belongs to the MAGA lawyers, or will be returned to donors, and the $600k will all be going to Richards and Chirafisi.

He's going to be broke for a long time unless he does a lot of media shit and then will probably have additional fees to pay with the expectation that he's going to have civil cases brought at least by Huber's family.
 

Fearless

Mighty Mouse
Joined
Apr 24, 2003
Messages
4,337
Location
The Pink Torpedo Club
It matters as his opposition have framed him as a Nazi who was there to stop BLM and ended up killing their supporters out of hate. Joe Biden compared him to a white supremacist, Colin Kaep mentioned it, Representative Ayanna Pressley called him that. you can't just throw labels on people ESPECIALLY as a politician because you rile people up even more and create an environment where people will not look at the legal aspect and see this as a simple fight against white supremacy. People are literally marching now claiming "white supremacy wins again" and the politicians stoked these flames. Its not their job. Thats not what you get hired for. Sowing seeds of division
Build Back Bitter.
 

Stacks

Full Member
Joined
Jul 10, 2015
Messages
9,297
Location
Between a rock and Gibraltar
I've watched enough drama LOLsuits on the internet to know how US defamation works now :lol:

He doesn't have a case for the reasons I have previously stated and depending on which state he sues in could end up paying fees and costs due to anti-SLAPP legislation.

People think he has a lot of money that was raised, but $2m belongs to the MAGA lawyers, or will be returned to donors, and the $600k will all be going to Richards and Chirafisi.

He's going to be broke for a long time unless he does a lot of media shit and then will probably have additional fees to pay with the expectation that he's going to have civil cases brought at least by Huber's family.
:lol: ok fine. He'll probably end up working at Fox News or the Daily Wire
 

Stacks

Full Member
Joined
Jul 10, 2015
Messages
9,297
Location
Between a rock and Gibraltar
Build Back Bitter.
Man I just hate American politics and how they deal with social issues in such a partisan way. Everyone has to stay "on code" and stick to the script. Its pretty much dishonest reporting and lots of lies, deceit, disingenuousness and more lies. they will literally go on TV and state bold face debunkable lies as if they think the people are stupid
 

Stacks

Full Member
Joined
Jul 10, 2015
Messages
9,297
Location
Between a rock and Gibraltar
Thought you were only looking at the "legal aspect". Here you are hoping for a better career and earning opportunity for "kyle" instead of him going broke?
To be honest I couldn't give a monkeys where he ends up and no one can predict but Tucker Carlson (Fox News) has been seen on twitter videos saying he will employ him so its pretty obvious that's where he is heading. But then there's "Rittenhouse's" public BLM support
 

Suedesi

Full Member
Joined
Aug 3, 2001
Messages
21,401
Location
New York City
What can I say? This little episode caused one person to lose his temper and start throwing out insults, God knows we don't need to set off part II but personally as I've said I think it appears to be on the face of it a derogative term, 'Nut-Job' in a similar vein to 'Spazzo' or 'Retard' which aren't usually considered satisfactory to use here. Certainly I think he had mental problems which I can well imagine leading him to do what he did, maybe he was so affected by what he saw during the protest, maybe having recently attempted suicide he did not care what happened to him, and maybe we'll never know. It certainly kicked off a tragedy for another and their family and friends and injury for one more. I'm just of the opinion that the loss of life was a tragedy and they had people who cared for them.

Me adding 'He was abused as a child' was merely me adding to the history you were posting about as a by the by, something quite typical in his background but none of it relevant to his death, however my comment was seen as something else, best let sleeping dogs lie.


There's not much that I really understand about American Gun Culture,, as a British person we can have our opinions but getting our heads round it isn't simple. I think if we tried to relate the protest and attendance of the Militia's, their callout for individuals to come and bolster their numbers then I would think of the protests and riot in Croydon, Surrey (South London) a few years ago now and as a place that I worked in during the 80s and 90s an area I knew and was familiar with, a family owned business of decades burned down just around the corner from where I worked, and I can't imagine any authoritative body apart from the Police, or the Fire Brigade and Paramedics having legitimacy to respond, the vast percentage of the police wouldn't bear firearms, we certainly don't have militias in the UK and if we did it might mostly be farmers with shotguns and pitchforks they could maybe call upon, it might take several days for them to arrive driving tractors.

I'm afraid all that comes to mind having groups with their own agendas calling armed individuals to join them under what authority's tactics and control (?) is just insanity.
The US and GBR are two countries separated by a common language. Nut Job is not considered offensive here, in fact was a PG-13 Nut Job movie just a few years ago. Might have even had a sequel. Language is obviously constantly evolving but calling someone a "nut job" stateside is not dehumanizing in not even in the ballpark as calling them a "retard" for example.

Any hoo
 

Gehrman

Phallic connoisseur, unlike shamans
Joined
Feb 20, 2019
Messages
7,190
Yeah dude, you can’t charge someone without giving them the reason to defend themselves.
It's not just charging someone, it's trying to take their rifle as well. In a situation like that you don't know if they would use it to kill your or just get killed by other means.
 

Gehrman

Phallic connoisseur, unlike shamans
Joined
Feb 20, 2019
Messages
7,190
:lol: not regularly, occasionally when the click bait gets me

Is he considered right wing now? I saw some people are calling him, Matt Tiabbi and Glenn Greenwald right wing recently
Whether someone is right-wing or left-wing the most important thing should really be whether they get the facts right whatever they are commenting on.
 

UweBein

Full Member
Joined
Sep 20, 2014
Messages
3,351
Location
Köln
Supports
Chelsea
The problem with this trial is also that in other instances it was pretty hard to prove self-defense.



There are quite a lot people, especially women, jailed behind bars because they acted in self defense.
 

oates

No one is a match for his two masters degrees
Scout
Joined
May 7, 2012
Messages
24,105
Supports
Arsenal
Whether someone is right-wing or left-wing the most important thing should really be whether they get the facts right whatever they are commenting on.
If that was a prerequisite for politics there'd be no politics. We all know that it is the slant based on interpretation of a fact that proves the tricky part.
 

Gehrman

Phallic connoisseur, unlike shamans
Joined
Feb 20, 2019
Messages
7,190
Currently, which means she did spend time and her case is still being evaluated.


Context?
That she has good chance to win the trial. I imagine though that the law in this particular case is difficult. She's 100% morally right to do what she did, but I don't know how the laws works in these circumstances.