It's probably just in the prelim stage now; Rittenhouse said he's having the defamation suites to his civil lawyers.
However, there is another fight for Rittenhouse to focus on:
Kyle Rittenhouse Trial Thread
- Thread starter LindyAF
- Start date
However, there is another fight for Rittenhouse to focus on:
True, but as I said in my edit, it's very hard to get a judgement in a case like this. To once again reference OJ, he was very short on cash after losing a civil suit to his victim's families, but never tried to claim damages against any of the many, many, many high profile people who had openly said he was a murderer before and after his acquittal. I have a few theories as to why that might be:
1. OJ Simpson is incredibly forgiving of personal slights, despite the whole "murdered two people out of jealousy and rage" thing suggesting otherwise.
2. OJ had a clear cut case and wanted to sue, but was unable to find an attorney to actually put a suit together, because lawyers are a famously moral and upstanding lot and would not take an easy case like on account of how crude it is to sue people for calling a murderous spade a spade.
3. It's very hard to sue someone in a circumstance like this, because US libel law heavily favors the alleged libeler.
I will let you be the judge of which one of those scenarios is the most likely.
The Juice was also man who had been a world famous public figure since the 1970s, had dined with Presidents from what I recall and had a history of domestically abusing his drug addicted wife who according to her best friend would sneak into neighbors houses and sodomize them as they slept high off painkillers.
Comparing someone like that with an incredibly fucked up personal life to an 18 year old kid is a thing lawyers do because lawyers for all their obsession with context, often miss the individual trees for the forest.
A bunch of soccer moms who are traditionally the enemy of common sense and self empowerment acquitted him.
If he can win over a bunch of PTSA thots and self righteous haradins then he can sway a trial jury and maybe even a judge or two.
And yeah I get it, The Juice was America's sweetheart at the time and I've said arguably could have been a Cali governor.
But his wife was also a rumored serial rapist and his entire family situation was an absolute clusterfuck.
Comparing someone like that with an incredibly fucked up personal life to an 18 year old kid is a thing lawyers do because lawyers for all their obsession with context, often miss the individual trees for the forest.
A bunch of soccer moms who are traditionally the enemy of common sense and self empowerment acquitted him.
If he can win over a bunch of PTSA thots and self righteous haradins then he can sway a trial jury and maybe even a judge or two.
And yeah I get it, The Juice was America's sweetheart at the time and I've said arguably could have been a Cali governor.
But his wife was also a rumored serial rapist and his entire family situation was an absolute clusterfuck.
Last edited:
Rittenhouse's issues with the media are closer to what Nick Sandman experienced, than what OJ went through, so I think that's a poor example to work off of.
Perhaps. The issue is Sandman's suits were all confidentially settled and so we have no idea what happened, whereas OJ not suing under similar circumstances is a matter of public record.
OJ was a public figure before his trial, Rittenhouse wasn't; that is a pretty major difference.
Terthna
Professional Lurker
My crazy regresive leftist aunt beleives that Rittenhouse is a serial killer; she insists that he'll be in the news sometime next year having killed again. The backlash she got from myself and my mother nearly caused her to storm off; which would have been inconvenient for us, seeing as we still needed her help teaching us how to get my father in and out of bed (she's a retired nurse). My mother even tried to pull up all kinds of evidence on her laptop to prove her wrong, but she just kept insisting that it was all fake.
This is what we're dealing with here; people so entrenched in their own delusions that it is impossible to drag them out. She will never stop beleiving that Rittenhouse is a murderer, that Trump is personally responsible for everyone who has ever died from Covid-19, that she is better off with Biden as her president than she was with Trump; not even when you present her evidence to the contrary, provided by sources she supposedly trusts.
She essentially follows two religions simultaneously; and is somehow ignorant of the inherant contradictions in being both a devout Christian, and a devout Regressive Leftist.
This is what we're dealing with here; people so entrenched in their own delusions that it is impossible to drag them out. She will never stop beleiving that Rittenhouse is a murderer, that Trump is personally responsible for everyone who has ever died from Covid-19, that she is better off with Biden as her president than she was with Trump; not even when you present her evidence to the contrary, provided by sources she supposedly trusts.
She essentially follows two religions simultaneously; and is somehow ignorant of the inherant contradictions in being both a devout Christian, and a devout Regressive Leftist.
Kyle isn't even technically enrolled in ASU...
Though it's a pity, if he was and they did he would get to sue ASU too.
Seras
Well-known member
Not surprised at the ASU thing. It's always had it's crazies. Although there is almost always a pastor or two speaking on campus in the courtyard there as well, that tends to cause freakouts among the students sometimes.
I actually have my doubts ASU will cave here, but I could be wrong.
I actually have my doubts ASU will cave here, but I could be wrong.
Vyor
My influence grows!
I didn't know that OJ was covered in scar tissues and was covered in blood and wounds on his plane trip. Seems to be something that would have been rather easy to show in court instead of, you know, faking evidence. It was 1995, they had DNA tech too, so why didn't they compare OJ's blood to what the male victim had covering him and under his nails? Because he wasn't the one that did it.
Whatever happened to that anyway? Haven't heard squat on it since.
Seems like it's still kinda stuck in committee, at least as of May.
California proposing ‘exit tax’ – penalizing Californians for leaving the state
Assembly Bill 2088, introduced in August of 2020, is known as the California Wealth Tax. AB 2088 includes an ‘exit tax’ on residents leaving the state. Californians will not be taxed simply for rel…
fbanews.org
Actually Cali residents probably have a better idea of if it's going anywhere.
Seems like it's still kinda stuck in committee, at least as of May.
California proposing ‘exit tax’ – penalizing Californians for leaving the state
Assembly Bill 2088, introduced in August of 2020, is known as the California Wealth Tax. AB 2088 includes an ‘exit tax’ on residents leaving the state. Californians will not be taxed simply for rel…
Actually Cali residents probably have a better idea of if it's going anywhere.
Aside from the fact it's blatantly unconstitutional and most will happily ignore it....
Or get help from their new States in fighting it.
I could see a lot of state treasurers shutting down business with Cali over it. If states near it begin withholding water over their illegal Tax policies things could get interesting.
To be clear, this is not a thread about OJ, he's just a point of comparison. If you want to argue the specifics of the case, make a thread for that, in this thread you'll just to cope with the fact that, regardless of your personal belief, the overwhelming majority of people think OJ was guilty regardless of the jury results.
ShadowsOfParadox
Well-known member
The overwhelming majority of people also think Three Mile Island was a catastrophic disastre that justified never building another nuclear reactor again.
I wonder what I'd find if I went and looked at press coverage vs actual court documents...
You're right; however, there is a major distinction between OJ and Rittenhouse that was mentioned earlier: OJ was already a well known and established public figure, whereas Rittenhouse was not. What this means is that the opinion pieces and libelous statements that MADE him a public figure might still well be actionable since the standards for libel and slander are lower when the figure in question is not a "public figure" and since it was misreporting and opinionating about the incident that made him a public figure, he might have a stronger case.
stephen the barbarian
Well-known member
and a that's a good point to stick a pin in the matter
It only took 20 pages of Grinder dismissing that point for it to be uttered by someone with an admin post to settle the matter of course.