Kyl;e Rittenhouse will be a billionaire by the time his lawyers are done.

[mamooth]

Even if conservatives get money, they're too stupid to keep it. They waste it on stupid luxuries, not to mention hookers and blow.

Rittenhouse himself is clearly not smart. The first time I saw him speak, I thought he was mentally disabled. Scammers will clean him out of any money he gets. Needless to say, those scammers be conservatives who proclaim how much they admire him. The old affinity scam -- "I'm just like you, so you can trust me."

 

[surada]

Oh? Why? If some fucker tries to harm my daughter she will be able to protect herself because she has been taught how to do it.

That means if the government refuses to do their job, she will be OK.

YOUR violent assholes, not so much.

Is she a vigilante? Does she chase riots and break curfew? Girls adore their fathers. Be careful what you teach her.

 

[surada]

Even if conservatives get money, they're too stupid to keep it. They waste it on stupid luxuries, not to mention hookers and blow.

Rittenhouse himself is clearly not smart. The first time I saw him speak, I thought he was mentally disabled. Scammers will clean him out of any money he gets. Needless to say, those scammers be conservatives who proclaim how much they admire him. The old affinity scam -- "I'm just like you, so you can trust me."

At first I thought Kyle was mentally handicapped. He's not but he is far from smart.

 

[hadit]

Probably lots, before his lawyers settled for "Go away" money.

Nobody is going to pay Rittenhouse "go away" money.

the point that Smirky McBitchslap had going for him is he wasn't doing anything illegal. Rittenhouse did.

"Wah, Biden Called me a Murderer! And so did Whoopie Goldberg!"

"Um, here you are on tape, killing people."

Remember, according to your own standard, you can't accuse him of murder until you can prove he's a murderer, and that's going to be very difficult for you to do, seeing as he was on trial for murder and was found not guilty. I know it's tough being hoisted on your own petard, but you set the standard.

 

[westwall]

Is she a vigilante? Does she chase riots and break curfew? Girls adore their fathers. Be careful what you teach her.

No. And neither did Kyle.

DURRRRRR

 

[hadit]

Kyle shouldn't have been there carrying a weapon and breaking curfew. Curfew began at dusk. He ignored law enforcement. He's as bad as the instigators and he's killed two people.

The rioters shouldn't have been there. See how that works when you stretch and twist to assign blame?

 

[hadit]

Actually, he violated a shitload of laws, including illegally owning a gun, crossing state lines with a gun, being out past curfew and oh yeah, shooting 3 people.

Weird how you keep repeating that lie even after being shown multiple times that it's a lie. Here's the truth. He did NOT cross a state line with a gun. Look it up and stop repeating a lie. Also, his shooting the people was found to be legal, because he stood trial and was found not guilty. Only in your lala land where you get to define all the words and discard anything you don't like does that mean he violated the law by shooting people.

 

[hadit]

Do you support vigilantes?

Define vigilantes. Then explain which ones you're talking about.

 

[surada]

Define vigilantes. Then explain which ones you're talking about.

Dictionary.com | Meanings & Definitions of English Words

The world's leading online dictionary: English definitions, synonyms, word origins, example sentences, word games, and more. A trusted authority for 25+ years!

www.dictionary.com

 

[surada]

Taking the law into your own hands is vigilantism.

 

[surada]

The rioters shouldn't have been there. See how that works when you stretch and twist to assign blame?

The rioters we're also breaking the law protesters were off the streets by dusk.

 

[Bobob]

He won't have to work another day the rest of his life, except he wants to go into medicine and law anyway.

If Nick got $800 million, the sky's the limit for Kyle right now. Without even walking into another courtroom, Rittenhouse could probably settle for over a billion between all the parties in question. I hope he starts with the View's Joy Behar (unlike the fake meme circulating)

In 2019, Nick Sandmann, a high school kid from Kentucky, was accused by several major news outlets of aggressively confronting a Native American man during demonstrations in Washington, D.C. Their videotaped faceoff was described by CNN, ABC, CBS, The Washington Post, The New York Times and others as a confrontation instigated by an obviously racist teen wearing a Make America Great Again Hat. The full video revealed Sandmann had done no such thing.

Sandmann eventually sued seven media outlets for more than $800 million. After out-of-court settlements he is now presumed to be a multimillionaire. Sandmann recently wrote an op-ed saying, “The corrupt liberal media came for me, just like they came for Kyle Rittenhouse, and if he decides to sue I say go for it and hold the media accountable.”

I can tell you with certainty that right now attorneys for newly acquitted defendant Kyle Rittenhouse are working overtime. They are combing through every slanderous statement made about this young man. Every defamatory comment offered up before any facts were presented in a court of law is now under the microscope for possible litigation.

Who is at risk of being sued? Politicians, including President Joe Biden, then a candidate without presidential immunity, was the first high-profile person to declare that young Kyle was a member of an Illinois militia. He ran a campaign ad condemning “white supremacists” featuring a photo of the then 17-year-old. Several members of Congress, such as Rep. Cori Bush, D-Mo., took up the anti-Rittenhouse “white supremacy” chant, and even after the acquittal Rep. Adriano Espaillat, D-N.Y., called Rittenhouse a “murderer who is once again walking free.”

Yes, politicians can be sued for slander for public statements made “outside their seat,” and it will be interesting to see if Rittenhouse’s team goes that route.

But it is media organizations that are the obvious prime targets for lawsuits. Many reporters and TV pundits pronounced Rittenhouse guilty from the get-go. This despite readily available video showing the young man being chased, knocked down and violently attacked that fateful night. The camera also followed Rittenhouse after the shooting as he immediately tried to surrender to police.

Long before the trial facts emerged, MSNBC and CNN frequently repeated the theory that Rittenhouse acted as an “armed vigilante,” a “domestic terrorist” and “a racist.” Even after the verdict one MSNBC host called Rittenhouse “this little murderous white supremacist.” Sounds like slander to me.

Despite media reports from CBS and others, Rittenhouse did not cross state lines “armed for battle.” (CBS, likely sensing legal liability, has now issued a correction.) Rittenhouse lived with his mother in nearby Antioch, Illinois, but had a job, his father and relatives in Kenosha. The law said he was legally allowed to carry the rifle he had that night.

Facts matter. The three older men, each with a violent criminal history, who attacked Rittenhouse that night were white, not Black. And as open-minded people learned during the trial, Kyle was none of the derogatory things the media claimed. He worked as a lifeguard and was a dedicated police cadet studying to be an EMT and a nurse. Before the fatal shooting he had gone out to erase lewd graffiti spray-painted on a public building. Does that sound like a terrorist to you?

The false descriptions took on a tsunami quality on social media and in the public consciousness. Facebook, that so-called beacon of free speech, blocked any posts sympathetic to Rittenhouse.

“We’ve designated the shooting in Kenosha a mass murder and are removing posts in support of the shooter,” Facebook said at the time. Any post with the words “Free Kyle” was blocked.

Remember this when you hear Facebook’s Mark Zuckerberg claim his platform doesn’t censor content.

This kid never had a chance in the tainted court of public opinion. It’s a wonder Kenosha was able to seat an impartial jury.

Diane Dimond: Kyle Rittenhouse now due another sort of justice

I can tell you with certainty that right now attorneys for newly acquitted defendant Kyle Rittenhouse are working overtime. They are combing through every slanderous statement made about this young

www.joplinglobe.com

Of course, he could be broke for the rest of his life if his victims file and win a civil suit.

 

[hadit]

Even if conservatives get money, they're too stupid to keep it. They waste it on stupid luxuries, not to mention hookers and blow.

Rittenhouse himself is clearly not smart. The first time I saw him speak, I thought he was mentally disabled. Scammers will clean him out of any money he gets. Needless to say, those scammers be conservatives who proclaim how much they admire him. The old affinity scam -- "I'm just like you, so you can trust me."

Show us on the doll where he hurt you.

 

[Flash]

Kyle is a lot like George Zimmerman. He had fantasies of being a cop and a hero. Playing pretend isn't a good character trait.

Kyle was a kid that was helping protect the community because the BLM ass kissing demented Democrat controlled leadership told the police to stand down and a bunch of filthy BLM terrorist tried to kill him and payed the price.

It is not any more complicated than that. Now he is going to be rich suing the pants off the Left Wing assholes that lied about him.

I wonder if his lawyers know about all the hateful untrue things you have said about the kid on this forum?

 

[westwall]

Taking the law into your own hands is vigilantism.

Is self defense vigilantism?

 

[hadit]

Taking the law into your own hands is vigilantism.

Okay, then let's look at the circumstances wherein Rittenhouse fired his weapon.

1. He was threatened by a rioter who broke curfew (we know from repeated posts that this is the most awful thing that could have been done that night), who announced his intention of killing Rittenhouse. Kyle successfully defended himself. Did he take the law into his own hands? Yes. Was he justified in doing so? The jury said he was. I mean, it's not like he could call the cops and wait for them to come defend him.
2. He was then confronted by other rioters who broke curfew and announced their intention of harming or killing him, and he attempted to leave the area (that is the correct response to that situation). The vigilantes (they were so because they did not call the cops and wait for them to come apprehend Kyle, who they thought should have been apprehended) chased him down. Only when he was unable to flee any further did he fire again. Did he take the law into his own hands? Absolutely. Was he justified in doing so? Yes, as determined by the jury.

So, you see that in this case there were two vigilantes. One was Kyle who took the law into his own hands to defend himself and the other was the rioters who were chasing him down. Is either or both supportable? You tell me.

Do you support vigilantes?

 

[westwall]

Of course, he could be broke for the rest of his life if his victims file and win a civil suit.

They would lose, and no lawyer with a brain would waste their time and money on a loser like that.

 

[westwall]

Okay, then let's look at the circumstances wherein Rittenhouse fired his weapon.

1. He was threatened by a rioter who broke curfew (we know from repeated posts that this is the most awful thing that could have been done that night), who announced his intention of killing Rittenhouse. Kyle successfully defended himself. Did he take the law into his own hands? Yes. Was he justified in doing so? The jury said he was. I mean, it's not like he could call the cops and wait for them to come defend him.
2. He was then confronted by other rioters who broke curfew and announced their intention of harming or killing him, and he attempted to leave the area (that is the correct response to that situation). The vigilantes (they were so because they did not call the cops and wait for them to come apprehend Kyle, who they thought should have been apprehended) chased him down. Only when he was unable to flee any further did he fire again. Did he take the law into his own hands? Absolutely. Was he justified in doing so? Yes, as determined by the jury.

So, you see that in this case there were two vigilantes. One was Kyle who took the law into his own hands to defend himself and the other was the rioters who were chasing him down. Is either or both supportable? You tell me.

Do you support vigilantes?

Rioters, by definition, can not be vigilantes because they are violating the laws.

 

[EvilCat Breath]

Still arguing what Kyle Rittenhouse did. Ths case is long over. He's not a murderer, or a vigilante. He broke no curfew laws. This is by operation of law. He will never be tried for your wild imaginings. He is innocent. He was acquitted of all charges. You might not like the result, but you will never relitigate the facts.

 

[Bobob]

They would lose, and no lawyer with a brain would waste their time and money on a loser like that.

We will see. The Juice won the criminal case and got clobbered in the civil case.