Posted on Feb 23, 2022
Kyle Rittenhouse has 'close to zero' chance to win lawsuits, experts say
2.9K
32
17
7
7
0
Opinion article about weak case if Kyle Rittenhouse wants to sue. Major differences exist between his hypothetical case and Nick Sandmann's case (e.g. scope, status, court selection, evidence admissible in a civil case, etc.)
Kyle Rittenhouse has 'close to zero' chance to win lawsuits, experts say
Posted from madison.com
Lawsuit
Law
Broadcast Media
Celebrities
Posted 3 y ago
Responses: 8
5
5
0
SFC Casey O'Mally
What murderous bastard? If you're bare referring to Rittenhouse, that would be libellous. He was acquitted of murder and a jury determined he acted in self defense. Which you know. And are making a deliberately and knowing untruthful statement.
Be careful, lest you go on his list of folks to sue.
Be careful, lest you go on his list of folks to sue.
(2)
(0)
1SG (Join to see)
A not guilty verdict does not mean someone is innocent of a crime. It means the prosecution failed to make their case.
(2)
(0)
CMSgt (Join to see)
Every criminal case is supposed to begin with the presumption of innocence for the defendant. If the jury cannot convict, a presumption of innocence is maintained. Does that mean the defendant did not commit the crime? No, simply means a court couldn't prove a crime was committed.
In regards to Rittenhouse, emotionally charged/armed individuals running around Kenosha, Wisconsin armed was never going to end well.
In regards to Rittenhouse, emotionally charged/armed individuals running around Kenosha, Wisconsin armed was never going to end well.
(0)
(0)
3
3
0
I am no expert, but the representation of "facts" in this article appear to be definitively flawed.
For one, the claim that Rittenhouse is a "public figure" and thus required to meet the higher bar. He is only a "public figure" because of the media's non stop libellous portrayal of him. The defense that your untruthful portrayal of a private citizen - the very portrayal you are being sued for - has driven them to stardom, and thus they must meet the "public figure" bar is ludicrous on its face. But, as I said, I am no expert.
Additionally, people with national main stream media shows (with huge panels of lawyers who advise them), such as Whoopi Goldberg on The View or political and legal anlysis shows, such as Uyngur at TYT, should be expected to recognize the difference between murder and self defense. Even if not, simply adding a (non-sarcastic) "alleged" gives them cover - a cover which they failed to use on multiple occasions. These folks are hardly Joe Schmoe off the street.
Calling someone a murderer is not an opinion, as the article seems to believe. It is an assertion of fact. Same with calling someone a white supremacist. When you cross from "is accused of" or "is alleged to be" or "in my opinion is guilty of" or "appears to be" into the realm of "is" you are asserting fact. No matter how much your defenders want to claim it is opinion.
At least that's how I see it.
(See how I did a pre-caveat and post-caveat to identify opinion? And I ain't even a media superstar with lots of lawyers to keep me straight.)
For one, the claim that Rittenhouse is a "public figure" and thus required to meet the higher bar. He is only a "public figure" because of the media's non stop libellous portrayal of him. The defense that your untruthful portrayal of a private citizen - the very portrayal you are being sued for - has driven them to stardom, and thus they must meet the "public figure" bar is ludicrous on its face. But, as I said, I am no expert.
Additionally, people with national main stream media shows (with huge panels of lawyers who advise them), such as Whoopi Goldberg on The View or political and legal anlysis shows, such as Uyngur at TYT, should be expected to recognize the difference between murder and self defense. Even if not, simply adding a (non-sarcastic) "alleged" gives them cover - a cover which they failed to use on multiple occasions. These folks are hardly Joe Schmoe off the street.
Calling someone a murderer is not an opinion, as the article seems to believe. It is an assertion of fact. Same with calling someone a white supremacist. When you cross from "is accused of" or "is alleged to be" or "in my opinion is guilty of" or "appears to be" into the realm of "is" you are asserting fact. No matter how much your defenders want to claim it is opinion.
At least that's how I see it.
(See how I did a pre-caveat and post-caveat to identify opinion? And I ain't even a media superstar with lots of lawyers to keep me straight.)
(3)
(0)
SPC Erich Guenther
I suspect they are correct that he is a public figure because he ran around and gave press conferences after the fact and sought money from various idealogical groups. It's one thing if he embraced his privacy throughout and declined the public spotlight but this guy was everywhere there was a spotlight including repeatedly on various FOX NEWS television shows. Thats a public figure by my book as well.
(0)
(0)
SFC Casey O'Mally
SPC Erich Guenther he is a public figure *now*. But he was not when they libeled him.
(1)
(0)
3
3
0
Pretty uncharacteristic for someone that wants to lay low, out of the public eye.
(3)
(0)
Read This Next
Continue with Facebook 
Continue with Google