Breaking News: Sandmann lawyer joins Rittenhouse team, says Zuckerberg a 'top' target of numerous 'solid' lawsuits

[Coyote]

Only if you don't believe in the rule of law.

Ahhh….please remember that then.

 

[Coyote]

It doesn't mean anything to a white supremacist. That was a prank pulled by 4chan.

Only idiots still believe that nonsense.

Again, that is a subjective interpretation. Given that the suit is already on thin ground to begin with, photos paling around with them don’t look good. How is the average person going to interpret them in light of the fact he killed two men in place a place he shouldn’t have been, with a gun he shouldn’t have had? and he is a public figure? He isn’t Sandmann who did nothing.

 

[Coyote]

Rittenhouse has a Court Ruling that says he lawfully killed in self defense.

OJ doesn't.

OJ has a ruling saying he is acquitted. Rittenhouse has a ruling saying he was acquitted. That is it. The ONLY ruling was “not guilty”.

 

[busybee01]

On second thought, you're right. How dare that privileged white son of a bitch defend his life?

He was not defending his life. If I had a gun and he even pointed his in my direction, I would have blown his head off in self-defense. He had no business being there.

 

[busybee01]

Joe Biden is likely to be a named party.

No he is not.

 

[busybee01]

Yeah, Rittenhouse killed two LAWFULLY.

DURRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRR

He got away with it.

 

[busybee01]

You run with that. Rittenhouse is going to be a multi millionaire by the time this is all over.

I wouldfn't start spending it yet.

 

[Bootney Lee Farnsworth]

I said nothing about the Sandmann case. Sandmann shot no one. Rittenhouse did. Two completely different cases.

As if that makes any difference whatsoever.

 

[Bootney Lee Farnsworth]

He was not defending his life. If I had a gun and he even pointed his in my direction, I would have blown his head off in self-defense. He had no business being there.

Why don't you leave this topic to people who have a clue?

 

[Resnic]

I said nothing about the Sandmann case. Sandmann shot no one. Rittenhouse did. Two completely different cases.

You stop and start at "Rittenhouse shot people" while ignoring every other factual proven bit of evidence.

You ignore the fact he was attacked first by multiple people, that he tried to flee, that one of them was armed and had his gun out first, that when he did shoot he was on the ground. You also ignore the fact that he was only there trying to help people who were under siege by criminals, you also don't seem to care about the people running around burning and looting and destroying stuff and only focus on one kid who defended himself and calling him the criminal.

You're a contrarian, all you care about is being against others even if it means you will lie and disregard facts so you can feel like you're right

 

[Big Bend Texas]

This is great news for Rittenhouse, especially, but also for those of us disgusted by the orchestrated attempt of political hacks in news media, social media, and government to lie and subvert the law in order to destroy an innocent young man's life. McMurtry is an expert in libel and defamation law and represented Nicholas Sandmann. The reason I'm so jazzed about this news is because I was exasperated with all the talk about going after talking heads only, while the leading target, in my opinion, should be Mark Zuckerberg for the reasons reported in this article. I remember what Facebook and Instagram did. The former even slapped a warning on one of my posts about its outrageous behavior. McMurtry is on the case, and Facebook is in his crosshairs.

Talk about deep pockets!

FIRST ON FOX – The lawyer who represented Covington Catholic student Nicholas Sandmann during his defamation cases has joined Kyle Rittenhouse’s legal team, and says there will be "at least 10" defamation lawsuits against prominent figures and companies for comments against the teenager.​

​

"I’ve been hired to head the effort to determine whom to sue, when to sue, where to sue," Todd McMurtry, who now represents Rittenhouse, told Fox News Digital in a phone interview Thursday morning. "We're going to look at everything that's been said, determine which of those comments are legally actionable and proceed from there."​

​

McMurtry said it’s "pretty much assured that there's probably 10 to 15 solid" cases against "large defendants" . . .​

​

. . . Though the legal process for potential defamation cases is just beginning, McMurtry singled out Facebook CEO Mark Zuckerberg and Facebook for a "factually false" designation on the platform that listed the Kenosha shootings as a "mass murder" incident. The designation resulted in Rittenhouse’s social media accounts being pulled down and restricting positive comments about the teenager.​

​

"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."​

​

Outrage erupted after Facebook and Instagram designated the shooting during the Kenoohsa riot a "mass murder incident" before a trial or verdict, with the Wall Street Journal's editorial board arguing in 2020 that such a designation hurt the teenager's shot at due process and called the move an "alarming resort to censorship." ​

​

Meta, Facebook's parent company, ultimately reinstated Rittenhouse's social media accounts after his acquittal last year and lifted other restrictions. ​

​

McMurtry added that Zuckerberg is "certainly going to be at the top of your list" when examining what potentially false statements are legally actionable "because he has an outsized voice."​

​

"Facebook has an outsized voice, they can do a lot of damage, as compared to somebody maybe who has a small blog with 100 subscribers. But we're going to look at everything that we have access to and that's been published, and decide which ones are actionable," he added. ​

​

Facebook did not immediately respond to Fox News Digital's request for comment on the matter. ​

​

McMurtry represented Nicholas Sandmann after the media lambasted him over a confrontation at the 2019 March for Life in Washington, D.C., resulting in numerous settlements with media companies such as NBC-Universal, CNN and the Washington Post.​

​

Speculation has mounted in recent months that Rittenhouse would file similar lawsuits, especially after Sandmann advised last year that though filing such suits is a personal matter, Rittenhouse should sue media outlets he believes defamed his character.​

​

McMurtry said he didn’t want to "necessarily tie the cases together," but pointed out similarities between Sandmann and Rittenhouse, as both were minors during the incidents and were "were falsely wrongfully condemned by the media and social media."​

​

Rittenhouse said in February that he was launching an initiative to combat news organizations for the "lies" they have published, and explained he had a "list" of people that could face legal action.​

​

"Well, right now, we're looking at quite a few politicians, celebrities, athletes, Whoopi Goldberg's on the list," Rittenhouse said on Fox News' "Tucker Carlson Tonight" in February. "She called me a ‘murderer’ after I was acquitted by a jury of my peers. She went on to still say that."​

​

As for proving damages, McMurtry told Fox News Digital he knows "for a fact that [Rittenhouse] can prove that his job prospects are permanently diminished." ​

​

"Not to mention what they call perpetual reputational harm, which means that Kyle is never going to have an interaction with anybody where they don't know who he is. And this is going to follow him around for the rest of his life."​

​

"Everybody's going to prejudge him in every new interaction that he has with everybody for the rest of his life, and that's called perpetual reputational harm. … The social media hysteria caused all this because people can't act reasonably and rationally in certain circumstances," McMurtry said.​

MSN

I sincerely hope they succeed and get the largest jury award in history for defamation.

 

[Ringtone]

Any verdict can be a travesty - just depends on how you see justice. The jurors didn’t let Rittenhouse off because they believed he was innocent, but because there is such a high bar set for conviction, same as with OJ. If there is any doubt at all, the can’t convict. Civil suits however are different, with a much lower bar for conviction (OJ was convicted in one) and Rittenhouse is already facing at least one. If he loses, he won’t be able to profit off of killing two people. No one should profit off killing.

You're being absurd! The jury was clearly appalled that Rittenhouse was charged in the first place. There was never any question of his innocence. Rittenhouse went out of his way to avoid shooting those degenerates. He tried to run away. They were the criminals, indeed, who had committed other felonies in the past. They were trying to kill him.

The lawsuits have absolutely nothing to do with Rittenhouse trying to profit off killing. On the contrary, it was powerful political and media figures who profited off the tragedy as they lied and slandered and slithered over the corpses, as they colluded to destroy an innocent man's life.

There's something wrong with your moral compass. Either that or you have intentionally kept yourself in the dark regarding the actual facts of the case.

 

[westwall]

Any verdict can be a travesty - just depends on how you see justice. The jurors didn’t let Rittenhouse off because they believed he was innocent, but because there is such a high bar set for conviction, same as with OJ. If there is any doubt at all, the can’t convict. Civil suits however are different, with a much lower bar for conviction (OJ was convicted in one) and Rittenhouse is already facing at least one. If he loses, he won’t be able to profit off of killing two people. No one should profit off killing.

The civil suit against him is a joke that will be tossed thanks to his victory in the criminal case.

He adopted an "Affirmative Defense". That means he wasn't trying to be found not guilty of killing the two assholes, but that he killed them LAWFULLY.

He won. That means no civil case has a leg to stand on.

DURRRRRR

 

[westwall]

Ahhh….please remember that then.

I do. You seem to ignore it.

 

[westwall]

Again, that is a subjective interpretation. Given that the suit is already on thin ground to begin with, photos paling around with them don’t look good. How is the average person going to interpret them in light of the fact he killed two men in place a place he shouldn’t have been, with a gun he shouldn’t have had? and he is a public figure? He isn’t Sandmann who did nothing.

No it isn't. It is a well known fact that the silly people at 4chan put that meme out. Idiots who are, well idiots, ran with it.

It isn't subjective at all.

 

[westwall]

OJ has a ruling saying he is acquitted. Rittenhouse has a ruling saying he was acquitted. That is it. The ONLY ruling was “not guilty”.

WRONG! Kyle has a ruling that he killed LAWFULLY! PAY ATTENTION TO THE FACTS OF THE CASE!

They matter!

 

[RoshawnMarkwees]

OJ has a ruling saying he is acquitted. Rittenhouse has a ruling saying he was acquitted. That is it. The ONLY ruling was “not guilty”.

Except that OJ wasn’t defending himself from murderous thugs as Rittenhouse was. Rittenhouse charges should not even have been brought in the first place. One was even dropped in court.
You’re intolerant. You have zero objectivity. You should not be a moderator of anything.

 

[Big Bend Texas]

This will go nowhere unless they get cold feet. I would fight it as Rittenhouse does not have a leg to stand on. He shot multiple people. Just because a jury corruptly allowed him to go free, that does not prevent the media from invoking their free speech rights. He had no business being there. Once he shot them, he became a public figure. There is no defamation.

His claim of lawful self defense was proven beyond any shadow of doubt.

The media absolutely slandered him throughout from the night of the shooting to the end of his trial and beyond and none of them ever offered formal retractions and apologies.

I hope he puts every one of those outlets into bankruptcy.

 

[Big Bend Texas]

OJ has a ruling saying he is acquitted. Rittenhouse has a ruling saying he was acquitted. That is it. The ONLY ruling was “not guilty”.

Wrong, there was never any doubt that he'd killed them, he flat out said that he did.

The burden of proof then was on him to prove it was self defense.

 

[Big Bend Texas]

He had no business being there. Once he shot them, he became a public figure. There is no defamation.

Really now? This is the US, we don't have to justify why we're anywhere acting in a lawful manner.

He was just a private citizen until the media made him front and center of every news cast and commentary for months trashing him as a White Nationalist, racist, and murderer all of which where shown to be objectively false.

There's definitely a cause of action as a result.