Sandman vs Rittenhouse: Which one wins the most lawsuit money?

He's walking down the street armed with an assault rifle and people just decide to rush him and get shot.

I don't think so.

Son, if you tried what you claim, you'd end up a crippled right winger and I don't need a gun to do it.

And from the actual trial that is exactly what happened….
 
Rittenhouse can't sue anybody. And he might end up paying out civil damages for wrongful death. You are assuming he will be found innocent. But what if he's not?

Because he pointed a gun at people which by law negates his claim of self defense.


IF they take him to court on wrongful death, the jury is going to hear about the actual felons he shot, the child rapist and the other violent assholes.....might be harder to win that case...all of that information was withheld during the criminal trial...
 
A public figure has to prove malice, a private figure does not. Beyond that, I posted a link, read it.

It is yet to be seen if the courts will consider Rittenhouse a private figure or public figure.

Once again, Kyle Rittenhouse is not a public figure like a politician or celebrity would be. He is, at most, an involuntary public figure, the way the illegitimate child of a politician would be. It would be a complete perversion of the slander/libel laws if the media could get out of liability simply by repeating their slander/libel A WHOLE BUNCH and then claiming that made the person they slandered a "public figure".
 
Once again, Kyle Rittenhouse is not a public figure like a politician or celebrity would be. He is, at most, an involuntary public figure, the way the illegitimate child of a politician would be. It would be a complete perversion of the slander/libel laws if the media could get out of liability simply by repeating their slander/libel A WHOLE BUNCH and then claiming that made the person they slandered a "public figure".
I understand and even agree with what you are saying; however, do you really expect the courts to have an opinion that makes that much sense. Maybe. I'm not so sure of that.
 
I understand and even agree with what you are saying; however, do you really expect the courts to have an opinion that makes that much sense. Maybe. I'm not so sure of that.

Well, the LAW does. You can't force someone to be a public figure. The reason the law makes it harder for a public figure to claim slander or libel is because they chose to put themselves in the public eye and make themselves a target for people's opinions. Kyle Rittenhouse didn't choose that at all.

I don't think it would be that hard for a good lawyer to make that case in a civil suit, especially if the civil suit is heard by a jury. The natural inclination of people is to look askance at big corporations and want to screw them.
 
Well, the LAW does. You can't force someone to be a public figure. The reason the law makes it harder for a public figure to claim slander or libel is because they chose to put themselves in the public eye and make themselves a target for people's opinions. Kyle Rittenhouse didn't choose that at all.

I don't think it would be that hard for a good lawyer to make that case in a civil suit, especially if the civil suit is heard by a jury. The natural inclination of people is to look askance at big corporations and want to screw them.
I'm going to wait and see what happens. I hope you are right.
 
Rittenhouse can't sue anybody. And he might end up paying out civil damages for wrongful death. You are assuming he will be found innocent. But what if he's not?

Because he pointed a gun at people which by law negates his claim of self defense.
A post that aged as well as a crack whore.
 
hard times for non-violent crimes...that's an outrage!

well, Rittenhouse was sort-of non-violent in that he was defending himself from violence

 

Forum List

Back
Top