Kyle Rittenhouse makes bail

[bersaguy]

The jury got it 100% correct. Now Kyle should sue everyone his lawyers can pin a lawsuit against....JMHO

[Snaveba]

So, if I shoot someone in self defense, but the circumstances around the shooting are a little muddled, and I end up on trial, but maybe not quite so publicly (as I am sure happens with SD shootings more than we know), and I am rightly found innocent, I should then sue everyone I can? Simply because the DA was not convinced enough with the evidence to not press charges to begin with? 

[bersaguy]

I heard a high ranking pentagon officer make a statement the next day after China tested there supersonic missile. He said that we have about 6 of them too so what is the big deal and the reporter doing the interview didn't have a comeback to the statement...lol.

[E4 No More]

1 hour ago, Snaveba said:

So, if I shoot someone in self defense, but the circumstances around the shooting are a little muddled, and I end up on trial, but maybe not quite so publicly (as I am sure happens with SD shootings more than we know), and I am rightly found innocent, I should then sue everyone I can? Simply because the DA was not convinced enough with the evidence to not press charges to begin with? 

No, you sue everyone who defamed you by calling you a murderer, white supremacist, etc without being found guilty by a jury of your peers.

[FUJIMO]

[Grunt67]

44 minutes ago, E4 No More said:

No, you sue everyone who defamed you by calling you a murderer, white supremacist, etc without being found guilty by a jury of your peers.

Then that should include Joe Biden. He called him a white supremacist a few days after the arrest.

[E4 No More]

25 minutes ago, Grunt67 said:

Then that should include Joe Biden. He called him a white supremacist a few days after the arrest.

He was not President at the time so I'd sue his ass first.

[Grunt67]

19 minutes ago, E4 No More said:

He was not President at the time so I'd sue his ass first.

True. Glad I wasn't witness to that procedure, LOL.

[AuEagle]

The Babylon Bee on Twitter: "Rittenhouse, Sandmann Agree To Share Joint Custody Of CNN https://t.co/LpxYmWpKn3" / Twitter

[FUJIMO]

https://www.washingtonexaminer.com/news/congressional-democrats-reel-over-rittenhouse-acquittal-call-for-doj-review-and-claim-white-supremacy?utm_source=msn&utm_medium=referral&utm_campaign=msn_feed

[Nikiski Dave]

3 hours ago, E4 No More said:

No, you sue everyone who defamed you by calling you a murderer, white supremacist, etc without being found guilty by a jury of your peers.

Including the farce of a president who called Kyle a white supremist.

[RED333]

2 hours ago, Grunt67 said:

Then that should include Joe Biden. He called him a white supremacist a few days after the arrest.

He was not the POTUS at the time, as such he is entitled to his opinion and it would be hard to win a case. That said the young man needs to stay low for a bit, if not longer.

[Grunt67]

1 hour ago, RED333 said:

He was not the POTUS at the time, as such he is entitled to his opinion and it would be hard to win a case. That said the young man needs to stay low for a bit, if not longer.

Agree, he wasn't,  but should have kept his mouth shut. Official or not.

[Omega]

2 hours ago, RED333 said:

He was not the POTUS at the time, as such he is entitled to his opinion and it would be hard to win a case. That said the young man needs to stay low for a bit, if not longer.

Yes, but it was while a candidate and in a public medium, so slander applies. 

[midtennchip]

Now that we are on to the defamation issue, I believe Rittenhouse would have a case if the statute of limitations hasn't passed yet.  This post is based on TN law and WI (and other state's) laws are similar, but likely have a different statute of limitations period.

Libel (written) and Slander (spoken) are both part of defamation.  To prove defamation, it's pretty simple:

   1.  a false statement (like, "he's a white supremacist");

   2.  caused damage to the plaintiff (this will be hard to prove for Rittenhouse, in that any single statement by any single person would be difficult to prove caused damage beyond what others were saying);

   3.  the false statement was made negligently, with reckless disregard for the truth, or with actual malice (the standard varies a bit with public and private individuals).

All of those appear to apply here, but again, proving that any particular false statement (for example, by Biden) caused Rittenhouse's damage might be difficult, but I could certainly see a jury finding that Rittenhouse's reputation was damaged by some of those specific comments.   The main concern is whether RIttenhouse has waited too long to bring the claim.  In TN, you have to file the claim within 6 months of the statement.  Statements have been made since the day the shooting occurred (and continue today), but when was the damage done?  So, it would be difficult to pinpoint what specific statement caused what specific damage.  

That said, this criminal case was (in my view) very instructive to anyone who was willing to keep up with the details.  A group of lawyers on YouTube were live-streaming the entire case and commenting in real time.  Those videos are still up and provide a LOT of explanation about what was going on.  This case had some bad lawyering on both sides, but I know I wouldn't want one of my trials televised and other lawyers critiquing me as it happened.  No one does everything perfectly, but there were a few glaring mistakes on both sides.  If you are interested in detailed analysis of the trial, I would encourage you to go look at the Rekieta Law videos.  They did an excellent job of covering the trial.

[Chucktshoes]

4 minutes ago, midtennchip said:

Now that we are on to the defamation issue, I believe Rittenhouse would have a case if the statute of limitations hasn't passed yet.  This post is based on TN law and WI (and other state's) laws are similar, but likely have a different statute of limitations period.

Libel (written) and Slander (spoken) are both part of defamation.  To prove defamation, it's pretty simple:

   1.  a false statement (like, "he's a white supremacist");

   2.  caused damage to the plaintiff (this will be hard to prove for Rittenhouse, in that any single statement by any single person would be difficult to prove caused damage beyond what others were saying);

   3.  the false statement was made negligently, with reckless disregard for the truth, or with actual malice (the standard varies a bit with public and private individuals).

All of those appear to apply here, but again, proving that any particular false statement (for example, by Biden) caused Rittenhouse's damage might be difficult, but I could certainly see a jury finding that Rittenhouse's reputation was damaged by some of those specific comments.   The main concern is whether RIttenhouse has waited too long to bring the claim.  In TN, you have to file the claim within 6 months of the statement.  Statements have been made since the day the shooting occurred (and continue today), but when was the damage done?  So, it would be difficult to pinpoint what specific statement caused what specific damage.  

That said, this criminal case was (in my view) very instructive to anyone who was willing to keep up with the details.  A group of lawyers on YouTube were live-streaming the entire case and commenting in real time.  Those videos are still up and provide a LOT of explanation about what was going on.  This case had some bad lawyering on both sides, but I know I wouldn't want one of my trials televised and other lawyers critiquing me as it happened.  No one does everything perfectly, but there were a few glaring mistakes on both sides.  If you are interested in detailed analysis of the trial, I would encourage you to go look at the Rekieta Law videos.  They did an excellent job of covering the trial.

I spent the last 3 weeks watching/listening to a solid 3/4 of the proceedings via the Rekieta stream. It was an excellent and extremely illuminating insight into this case in specific and the legal system as a whole. 
 

For me the biggest takeaway is that if the prosecution was willing to go that far and engage in such blatant misconduct when the cameras were on, what are they getting away with when the cameras are off? It was really quite sickening. 

[Erik88]

42 minutes ago, Chucktshoes said:

I spent the last 3 weeks watching/listening to a solid 3/4 of the proceedings via the Rekieta stream. It was an excellent and extremely illuminating insight into this case in specific and the legal system as a whole. 
 

For me the biggest takeaway is that if the prosecution was willing to go that far and engage in such blatant misconduct when the cameras were on, what are they getting away with when the cameras are off? It was really quite sickening. 

This is exactly why I donate to groups like the Innocence Project. I've seen cases where the prosecutors not only withheld evidence from the defense but actually fabricated evidence to get a conviction. 

[Chucktshoes]

12 minutes ago, Erik88 said:

This is exactly why I donate to groups like the Innocence Project. I've seen cases where the prosecutors not only withheld evidence from the defense but actually fabricated evidence to get a conviction. 

I’m really hoping that this red pills a lot of folks who didn’t pay a whole lot of attention while prosecutors pulled this kind of #### on folks from the other end of town because “they were probably guilty of something”. 
 

They can and will go after y’all just the same if’n they decide it’s what they want to do. 

[Nikiski Dave]

What is hard for me to understand is why are they tearing stuff up in Portland because of the verdict. As far as I have found out Kyle has not been in Oregon 

[Grunt67]

2 hours ago, Nikiski Dave said:

What is hard for me to understand is why are they tearing stuff up in Portland because of the verdict. As far as I have found out Kyle has not been in Oregon 

Doesn't matter. The serial protestors never miss an opportunity, relative or not. If the $@%* media stopped following them, it'd go away.

[Chucktshoes]

19 hours ago, Nikiski Dave said:

What is hard for me to understand is why are they tearing stuff up in Portland because of the verdict. As far as I have found out Kyle has not been in Oregon 

Man, Portland is gonna Portland. 

[E4 No More]

On 11/19/2021 at 10:05 PM, midtennchip said:

Now that we are on to the defamation issue, I believe Rittenhouse would have a case if the statute of limitations hasn't passed yet.  This post is based on TN law and WI (and other state's) laws are similar, but likely have a different statute of limitations period.

Libel (written) and Slander (spoken) are both part of defamation.  To prove defamation, it's pretty simple:

   1.  a false statement (like, "he's a white supremacist");

   2.  caused damage to the plaintiff (this will be hard to prove for Rittenhouse, in that any single statement by any single person would be difficult to prove caused damage beyond what others were saying);

   3.  the false statement was made negligently, with reckless disregard for the truth, or with actual malice (the standard varies a bit with public and private individuals).

All of those appear to apply here, but again, proving that any particular false statement (for example, by Biden) caused Rittenhouse's damage might be difficult, but I could certainly see a jury finding that Rittenhouse's reputation was damaged by some of those specific comments.   The main concern is whether RIttenhouse has waited too long to bring the claim.  In TN, you have to file the claim within 6 months of the statement.  Statements have been made since the day the shooting occurred (and continue today), but when was the damage done?  So, it would be difficult to pinpoint what specific statement caused what specific damage.  

That said, this criminal case was (in my view) very instructive to anyone who was willing to keep up with the details.  A group of lawyers on YouTube were live-streaming the entire case and commenting in real time.  Those videos are still up and provide a LOT of explanation about what was going on.  This case had some bad lawyering on both sides, but I know I wouldn't want one of my trials televised and other lawyers critiquing me as it happened.  No one does everything perfectly, but there were a few glaring mistakes on both sides.  If you are interested in detailed analysis of the trial, I would encourage you to go look at the Rekieta Law videos.  They did an excellent job of covering the trial.

Wouldn't the case be heard in either the sate of Illinois or the state in which the defendant committed the offense? I would also think that damages arise out of intangible things like his name and face being plastered all over the media causing him to lose appropriate income from jobs that reject him based on the reports.

When I was a LEO I had a suspect accuse me of breaking his back. Much to my chagrin, the city settled the case out of court for $5,000 although the case was demonstrably false, (3rd party eye witnesses and changing story). I wanted to sue the lawyer and complainant and was told that I suffered no damages. A couple of years later I went to a seminar held by a lawyer who specialized in such cases. He told me that I certainly DID suffer damages pointing out that since the Chief of Police was not there then there's a little bit of doubt that could hold back promotion/raises. He also pointed out that it could follow me to other police departments as well.

[midtennchip]

7 hours ago, E4 No More said:

Wouldn't the case be heard in either the sate of Illinois or the state in which the defendant committed the offense? I would also think that damages arise out of intangible things like his name and face being plastered all over the media causing him to lose appropriate income from jobs that reject him based on the reports.

When I was a LEO I had a suspect accuse me of breaking his back. Much to my chagrin, the city settled the case out of court for $5,000 although the case was demonstrably false, (3rd party eye witnesses and changing story). I wanted to sue the lawyer and complainant and was told that I suffered no damages. A couple of years later I went to a seminar held by a lawyer who specialized in such cases. He told me that I certainly DID suffer damages pointing out that since the Chief of Police was not there then there's a little bit of doubt that could hold back promotion/raises. He also pointed out that it could follow me to other police departments as well.

The defamation case (if ever filed) would generally be filed where the damage occurred (in Illinois since Rittenhouse lives there, but that isn't always were the damage occurred.  The real issue is showing real damage, not speculative damage.  Can he show that (for example) CNN's coverage specifically caused him a specific damage (like losing a job opportunity).  He can be (and likely was) damaged by a general character attack, but which of the thousands of "false" statements by hundreds (maybe thousands) of media outlets caused his damage?

As for the case you mentioned, it is very difficult (if not impossible in TN) to sue someone for a lawsuit they filed against you.  We deal with this all the time in litigation and generally (absent very specific circumstances and intent) claims made in a lawsuit cannot form the basis of another lawsuit.

[RED333]

34 minutes ago, midtennchip said:

The defamation case (if ever filed) would generally be filed where the damage occurred (in Illinois since Rittenhouse lives there, but that isn't always were the damage occurred.  The real issue is showing real damage, not speculative damage.  Can he show that (for example) CNN's coverage specifically caused him a specific damage (like losing a job opportunity).  He can be (and likely was) damaged by a general character attack, but which of the thousands of "false" statements by hundreds (maybe thousands) of media outlets caused his damage?

As for the case you mentioned, it is very difficult (if not impossible in TN) to sue someone for a lawsuit they filed against you.  We deal with this all the time in litigation and generally (absent very specific circumstances and intent) claims made in a lawsuit cannot form the basis of another lawsuit.

While this made my head hurt, thanks for the post.

[E4 No More]

12 hours ago, midtennchip said:

The defamation case (if ever filed) would generally be filed where the damage occurred (in Illinois since Rittenhouse lives there, but that isn't always were the damage occurred.  The real issue is showing real damage, not speculative damage.  Can he show that (for example) CNN's coverage specifically caused him a specific damage (like losing a job opportunity).  He can be (and likely was) damaged by a general character attack, but which of the thousands of "false" statements by hundreds (maybe thousands) of media outlets caused his damage?

As for the case you mentioned, it is very difficult (if not impossible in TN) to sue someone for a lawsuit they filed against you.  We deal with this all the time in litigation and generally (absent very specific circumstances and intent) claims made in a lawsuit cannot form the basis of another lawsuit.

Thanks for your response. FWIW I was a LEO in Missouri.