Kyle Rittenhouse Trial Thread

The legal standard is imminent threat, as in "is on the verge of killing someone right this very second".
That's not what an imminent threat means though. If a school shooter is walking down the hall between classrooms and you shoot him in the back, you are fine. Imminence is more about someone saying "When I come back with my gun", etc. But if the guy already has his gun out, I'd say that's an imminent threat. Obviously, IANAL, so to be sure we'd need one of those to look at relevant cases from the state to see where Wisconsin comes down on this, and I don't care enough to. But simply not having a gun pointed at you right now doesn't mean the threat isn't imminent in such a situation.

If you make an unreasonable jump to the correct conclusion, it doesn't retroactively fix your faulty logic to get there.
This would be a correct counter point, but the jump in logic was reasonable. Just wrong. If I hear repeated gunshots, people freak about an active shooter, a guy runs buy with a rifle and then shoots a man and misses another, yeah, it's reasonable to consider him a mass shooter.

I would also note you're taking Grosskreutz at his word a bit selectively here, his testimony is a contradictory mess. He had a gun with him, and drew it, but he didn't shoot Rittenhouse because that's not the sort of person he is, but also did point it at Rittenhouse, who he said was cycling the rifle (which he didn't, he hit the forward assist, which cannot be confused with pulling the charging handle). Going off of his objectively observed actions at the time, and not his self serving testimony, it looks a lot worse for him.
I'm of the opinion that the more he talks, the more chance a prosecutor could screw him on it, but also I'm not willing to read everything he said. So I'm excluding what he has said.
 
That's not what an imminent threat means though. If a school shooter is walking down the hall between classrooms and you shoot him in the back, you are fine. Imminence is more about someone saying "When I come back with my gun", etc. But if the guy already has his gun out, I'd say that's an imminent threat. Obviously, IANAL, so to be sure we'd need one of those to look at relevant cases from the state to see where Wisconsin comes down on this, and I don't care enough to. But simply not having a gun pointed at you right now doesn't mean the threat isn't imminent in such a situation.

Your example isn't really applicable. Of course you'd be fine if you gunned down a school shooter, charging you would be political suicide. The issue is when there's any grey area whatsoever.

I'm going off of what I was taught during my CCL training, where it was repeatedly stated that lethal force is off the table the second the person you're drawing on backs off, lowers the gun, etc. Anything past that puts you in very serious legal trouble even if justified.

This would be a correct counter point, but the jump in logic was reasonable. Just wrong. If I hear repeated gunshots, people freak about an active shooter, a guy runs buy with a rifle and then shoots a man and misses another, yeah, it's reasonable to consider him a mass shooter.

You're omitting the part where two people attack the guy with a rifle, which Grosskreutz must have witnessed if he saw the actual shooting, that puts a different spin on things. He's clearly not just running around shooting people at random.

And no, it's not reasonable to assume he's a mas shooter because you hear other people say so. You don't know if thry actually saw anything, you don't know if they're correct in saying the running guy is guilty vs, say, having fired in self defense, you don't even know if it's the right guy, there are loads of people with rifles running around Kenosha. Listening to the inherently untrustworthy mob is not reasonable.
 
This would be a correct counter point, but the jump in logic was reasonable. Just wrong. If I hear repeated gunshots, people freak about an active shooter, a guy runs buy with a rifle and then shoots a man and misses another, yeah, it's reasonable to consider him a mass shooter.

No, it isn't. Your comparison here is leaving out critical information (that the guy with the rifle is being actively attacked), and is thus fallacious.

By your argument, I can drive up to the parking lot of a gun range, and then tell someone else who just drove up that someone/anyone in there is a mass shooter, after which they are on legally solid ground to go in and shoot anyone in there.

That is not how it works. The instant that Rittenhouse turned his gun away from Grosskreutz, he proved to a minimum standard of 'there is now a reasonable doubt' that he was not some indiscriminate killer acting maliciously. The very fact that Grosskreutz had the chance to draw, means that he was not justified in drawing.

Grosskreautz does not have the privilege of being judge, jury, and executioner, which you are trying to give him.
 
So there were rumors Binger and Snorlax got suspended or something?

Did anything materialize to confirm that or was Barnes just gossiping?

Personally I think fat boy needs to lose his license. That man was a prosecutor who specialized in child sex crimes and he was that incompetent?

How many pedos and rapists and overall abusers were getting off Scott free because of his stupidity?
 
Nicholas Sandmann’s Lawyer Joins Kyle Rittenhouse’s Legal Team To Begin Filing Defamation Lawsuits


The attorney of former Covington Catholic High School student Nicholas Sandmann joined Kyle Rittenhouse’s legal team Thursday to begin filing defamation lawsuits.

Todd McMurtry told Fox News he will lead the effort in deciding who Rittenhouse will file lawsuits against for publicly defaming him during his 2021 trial. The attorney estimated there will be a total of 10 to 15 cases against “large defendants.”

“I’ve been hired to head the effort to determine whom to sue, when to sue, where to sue,” McMurtry said. “We’re going to look at everything that’s been said, determine which of those comments are legally actionable and proceed from there.”

Rittenhouse was acquitted of all five charges brought against him, including two counts of homicide and one count of attempted homicide, for fatally shooting Joseph Rosenbaum and Anthony Huber, plus injuring Gaige Grosskreutz with his AR-15-style rifle in August, 2020.

McMurtry signaled that Facebook CEO Mark Zuckerberg will be at the “top” of the “list” of being hit with lawsuit due to his platform labeling that the Kenosha shootings a “mass murder” event, which the lawyer said is “factually false,” Fox News reported.

“Let’s just use for an example what Facebook and Mark Zuckerberg said about [Rittenhouse]. They said that he was involved in a mass murder incident,” McMurtry explained. “This was not a mass murder incident. It was clearly factually false. To call somebody a mass murderer is seriously defamatory. And then to use the power of social media to basically … censor any views that would take opposition to that mass murderer statement is a serious effort to destroy his character. And it was seriously mistaken and seriously defamatory.” (RELATED: ‘Hold Them Accountable’: Nicholas Sandmann Says Rittenhouse Should Sue ‘Liberal Elites’ For Defamation)

Rittenhouse announced the launch of the Media Accountability Project on “Tucker Carlson Tonight” in February, vowing to sue media organizations, public figures and politicians after they falsely reported that he is a “white supremacist” and illegally “crossed state lines” with a firearm. The teenager said lawsuits will be brought forth against NBA star LeBron James and “The View” co-host Whoopi Goldberg, who claimed Rittenhouse “murdered” Rosenbaum.

McMurtry represented Sandmann after the media defamed him for a confrontation with a Native American man at the March For Life in 2019. The former high school student settled a $250 million lawsuit with the Washington Post in 2020, and also settled suits with NBC Universal and CNN. He said in a November Daily Mail op-ed that he was involved with six defamation suits with media outlets.

In the op-ed, Sandmann called on Rittenhouse to sue the liberal media to “hold them accountable” for their “attacks.”

“So, if Kyle is prepared to take on another burden in his early life, with the acceptance that it might result in nothing, I answer, give it a shot and hold the media accountable,” Sandmann previously said. “Taking a life, for any reason, sticks with someone forever and yet the liberal elites would rather turn it into a joke for likes. Not only does Kyle have to deal with that, but it is compounded with the overwhelming stress and trauma of the character assassination taking place against him.”
 
Nicholas Sandmann’s Lawyer Joins Kyle Rittenhouse’s Legal Team To Begin Filing Defamation Lawsuits

Hate to be the one to say this, but they aren't going to get more than go away settlements. They got 0 chance in a trial. Things like "White Supremicist" are opinion statements. Calling Rittenhouse a murderer? Also legally opinion.
 
Hate to be the one to say this, but they aren't going to get more than go away settlements. They got 0 chance in a trial. Things like "White Supremicist" are opinion statements. Calling Rittenhouse a murderer? Also legally opinion.
Oh, I wouldn't say that the settlement lawsuits are nothing.

Rittenhouse already settled with Whoopie Goldberg/The View and forced a formal apology for what they said.

Forcing formal apologies out of the groups that slandered him, as well as the cash settlements, is definitely a good outcome. Formal apologies are not something that can be laughed off, because it means legally admitting they fucked up and having to spell it out in writing.

Edit: Turns out this was a hoax that was spread on Twitter without any credible direct links; I heard about it via word of Tweet, not any direct link.
 
Last edited:
I agree for the most part, but there is some wiggle room here. It mentions in the post themselves, while they were calling Kyle part of a Mass Murder event they were censoring anyone who disagreed. Depending on the extent and targeting of that, it's possible you can still hit them with defamation as they were purposefully hiding the 'truth' and doing it knowingly.

But I do agree 9/10 chance all of them simply pay him a chunk of change and continue on.
 
Hate to be the one to say this, but they aren't going to get more than go away settlements. They got 0 chance in a trial. Things like "White Supremicist" are opinion statements. Calling Rittenhouse a murderer? Also legally opinion.
You’re probably right. I hate it though. What the leftists in the media did with Rittenhouse was nothing less than evil. Then again, if the legal system let him sue people in the media for things they said, it would probably also let the elites sue their detractors and critics and they have way more lawyers and influence in the courts.
 
Saying he killed black people?
This does dodge the opinion stuff, but the problem is getting to defamation/damages from that. You'd have to convince both a jury and a judge that being seen as killing black people is harmful to a reputation in a way that killing white people isn't, and put a monetary amount on that. On top of that, it might fall under an honest mistake exception.

Don't care. I hope the judge goes against precedent and ruins these bastards.
No, we really don't. The first amendment is vitally important, and allowing people to sue others into oblivion over things like this will be used by the powerful to bankrupt the less powerful. A classic example of freedom not being free.
Rittenhouse already settled with Whoopie Goldberg/The View and forced a formal apology for what they said.
Nope. That sadly did not happen. That's from this fake news site:

It calls itself satire in the about us part, but there's no joke.
 
The reason that Rittenhouse may have a valid case isn't because they told lies that were 'opinions,' it's because they made a sustained campaign where they said a wide variety of defamatory things about him.

If they missed 'alleged' just once in regards to his charges, that opens up a window of potential liability. That can be all that it takes. There's any number of other things they may have said that also open windows of potential liability.
 
The reason that Rittenhouse may have a valid case isn't because they told lies that were 'opinions,' it's because they made a sustained campaign where they said a wide variety of defamatory things about him.

If they missed 'alleged' just once in regards to his charges, that opens up a window of potential liability. That can be all that it takes. There's any number of other things they may have said that also open windows of potential liability.
Sustained campaign doesn't matter. There's honestly little they can say that would rise to defamation.
I'd never seen that article or site, and I heard this story at least a week ago.

However if it is fake....well, maybe Rittenhouse needs to add another target to his list of lawsuits.
Yeah, I didn't expect that would be the source you got it from. My bet is that you got it from someone who read this (or a similar story) then thought it was true, and published it.

Can you find a source for this?
 

Users who are viewing this thread

Back
Top