When Kyle's own life hangs on the line - again! Jury too scared to rule. An UPDATE on Deliberations

a reply to: sarahvital

I disagree. Justice is the first priority. "Taking certain parties to the cleaners" implies vengeance, and that is not what the courts are there for.

TheRedneck

originally posted by: TheRedneck
a reply to: sarahvital

I disagree. Justice is the first priority. "Taking certain parties to the cleaners" implies vengeance, and that is not what the courts are there for.

TheRedneck

They are for civil matters. I hope he takes them to "the cleaners" as well. Look at how sandman made out. Kyle has an equally strong suit and I can almost guarantee a good defamation team is already doing what they can to get him as a client.

originally posted by: SentientBunnySuit
Breaking news: Rittenhouse verdict protests sensibly planned for cities where citizens are least likely to be armed.

mobile.twitter.com...

Burn Loot and Murder with their antifa friends always peacefully protesting in democrat hell holes. Wonder why they dont protest like that in Texas or Florida.... oh wait! Nevermind.

a reply to: Imperator2

No, the civil courts are there to "make things right." As in, if someone damages you financially, the civil courts can force them to reimburse you (in theory, but that's for another thread). I know they have been used for vengeance, but I consider that an abuse of the court system.

It's not OK when one side does it and then not OK when another side does it. IMO, that's really what this case was about: equality under the law for everyone, not just for those who wanted to riot.

Besides Kyle doesn't need to "take anyone to the cleaners" to be rewarded. After all the political hub-bub, he is going to be a very wealthy man! It wouldn't surprise me if we someday see Senator Rittenhouse giving a speech on the floor of the Capitol Building, or maybe "The Rittenhouse Report" airing on one of the large news networks and being in the top ten on ratings.

That is how it should be... poetic justice. No vengeance required.

TheRedneck

originally posted by: TheRedneck
a reply to: Imperator2

No, the civil courts are there to "make things right." As in, if someone damages you financially, the civil courts can force them to reimburse you (in theory, but that's for another thread). I know they have been used for vengeance, but I consider that an abuse of the court system.

It's not OK when one side does it and then not OK when another side does it. IMO, that's really what this case was about: equality under the law for everyone, not just for those who wanted to riot.

Besides Kyle doesn't need to "take anyone to the cleaners" to be rewarded. After all the political hub-bub, he is going to be a very wealthy man! It wouldn't surprise me if we someday see Senator Rittenhouse giving a speech on the floor of the Capitol Building, or maybe "The Rittenhouse Report" airing on one of the large news networks and being in the top ten on ratings.

That is how it should be... poetic justice. No vengeance required.

TheRedneck

Great post 👍🏻

No revenge needed, just the ice cold objectively deliberated non-biased weight of true justice

I think the lefts idea of Kangaroo Courts was obliterated yesterday. They now know that even the entire Dem party and MSM can’t inflict their will on a true jury in a court of law

And because their positions are all emotionally driven propaganda-reinforced, their world view falls apart when things happen for reasons other than emotional

To me, the real justice is clinging to our flailing justice system for another few months/years. It’s a big victory for Kyle and gun rights activists, but the real victory is Lady Justice herself

a reply to: TheRedneck

Kyle was propelled into this situation by the media, the prosecutor, even the dementedPOTUS, he did not chose this path and has been damaged by the notoriety and slander from now on. Perhaps these events have and will continue to incur large security costs due to these slanders.

Justice is incomplete if Kyle is not compensated by the perpetrators of this slander.

a reply to: BrujaRebooted

Kyle was propelled into this situation by the media, the prosecutor, even the dementedPOTUS

I do not disagree with that one bit. However, what is the price of all the turmoil in his life? I watched him collapse in tears as the final verdict was read. What is the dollar figure attributable to such agony?

I say there can be none. Ergo, justice cannot be measured in dollars.

A more fair way to compensate Kyle for what happened to him would be for those he accosted, those who persecuted him, and those who unfairly propelled him into this situation to be arrested and charged themselves. That would be justice. Handing him some money is simply a poor substitute in my opinion.

To a lesser extent, true justice will also be served if those MSM outlets eventually close down over their constant blatant lies, while Kyle's life improves due to this new-found celebrity. I expect at lease the latter part of that is already happening, and I wish Kyle nothing but happiness for the rest of his life.

TheRedneck

a reply to: TheRedneck

There is no reason at all why both cant be accomplished. Punishment for the perpetrators that created his legal predicament and caused him to incur costs, and reimbursement of those costs.

Doesnt matter if there was a fundraiser, doesnt matter if he gets job offers, these things were FORCED on him by the overzealous prosecution, the media and the POTUS. He was forced to self-defend twice. He deserves compensation from the state and media, or justice isnt complete.

A 17 year old should not be starting out life deeply in debt for legal, medical (PTSD) and security costs. Thats not ‘handing him money’… its righting a wrong.

a reply to: BrujaRebooted

You have a point concerning the legal fees. That would be something that can be corrected via a financial award, and those who caused him to incur those costs should be held responsible for them. A similar thing can be said for any other costs he might have incurred due to the disruption of his life while all this was going on.

The problem lies in the question: who is responsible? The state of Wisconsin are the only ones who could possibly be held legally responsible for conducting the trial; this trial was their decision and their decision only. We both know how hard it is to sue the state for malicius prosecution. The media, as despicable as their actions may be, do not have the power to bring charges against anyone. Now, one may make an argument that the media goaded the prosecution into bringing this case... but how does one prove that? A first-year lawyer can have that thrown out of court before a trial date is set.

And rightfully so. If an award was made due to claims that the media propagated political action detrimental to Kyle Rittenhouse, then the self-defense claim would have to be thrown out as well. Kyle did present an imposing figure to his victims. He was carrying an AR rifle! Under the law, however, being an imposing figure is not a legal violation, nor a consideration that can be made against self-defense.

Nick Sandman's case was different. He was harassed due to false statements and malicious reporting. He was not charged legally due to these things. He deserved to be compensated for the interruption in his life caused by the media, because the media purposely and maliciously caused those interruptions in his life. The media did not cause Kyle Rittenhouse to be prosecuted.

Now, with that said, if there should be protests or threats against Kyle stirred up by the media, then that's a different case. In that case, the media should be forced to compensate Kyle for the damages they caused.

What I am against is the revenge motive: "They should be sued for everything they're worth because they said mean things!" That's not justice being called for; that is revenge being called for. I understand revenge, but I cannot condone it ever being extracted via the law. That's not what the law is for; it's what the law is supposed to prevent.

TheRedneck

a reply to: TheRedneck

Slander and libel can incur punitive damages in favor of a victim. A whole bunch of media personalities slandered and libeled him including the POTUS. These acts are against the law, and its not an act of revenge to seek justice for being a victim. It goes far beyond ‘saying mean things’. His life liberty and livelyhood were damaged. He should pursue the fullest extent of his options to find justice for these civil crimes against him.

The prosecutors need to have their legal licenses revoked. They pulled alot of sketchy kegal moves that they need to be smacked down for, so that other vultures take notice.

a reply to: BrujaRebooted

Slander and libel are indeed illegal. When the concept was young, it was understood that the damages from such were there to compensate for financial damages that resulted from being less able to find a good job, being shunned from events, things that impaired a person's ability to make an income. That is appropriate for the legal venue.

Unfortunately, that has also changed. Now, lawsuits are filed for "punitive" damage, even where there is no actual financial hardship presented. The theory is that the damages serve as a type of "fine" to prevent the offender from doing the same thing again, but the reality is they are seen by potential plaintiffs as a way to get rich quick. This is no different from the police force handing out extra tickets to fill a city's budget. For police to do so is, IMO, wrong, and it is just as wrong when someone else does it.

If Kyle Rittenhouse can show, in a court of law, that he has been financially harmed by this episode (and that is completely possible), then I have no issue with him receiving compensation from those who harmed him. If not for the uphill battle in suing a state for malicious prosecution, I would be all for him doing so... considering that uphill battle, I can understand why he wouldn't, though. But he has to show where the defendants in the case were directly responsible for his losses. Just showing that someone slandered him in the press is not good enough.

TheRedneck

a reply to: TheRedneck

I wonder if slander is a high enough crime for impeachment? I mean lying to be maliciously disreputable towards someone should be an indication of inability to hold a position of the public trust, wouldn’t it?

a reply to: TheRedneck

I have no problem with the police handing out extra tickets to fill out the budget, as long as the tickets were valid and deserved. I dont try to determine motive for perfectly legal and permissible action. Why trouble yourself with that kind of mindreading?

I hope Kyle never HAS to work again, his mental anguish, the part heaped upon him by a political prosecution and lies repeated endlessely by the media have damaged him for life. He will live with PTSD from these events forever. He will never be the same. That is grave damage and needs sending a message to the prosecutors and media not to pull this crap again, lest someone else suffer from similar injustices. Like maybe you next time.

a reply to: Ahabstar

I would think so, its using his position to influence a jury, its using his position to go after an American citizen, a minor, without cause. I would support it. It was viscous and political. And an assault on conservatives.

a reply to: Ahabstar

I think it could be. It would depend on how severe the slander is. The President has the same rights to his opinion as anyone else (regardless of who is in office), but he also has the power to use those opinions along with his power to shape pubic policy.

I would want to see malicious intent proven.

TheRedneck

a reply to: BrujaRebooted

I have no problem with the police handing out extra tickets to fill out the budget, as long as the tickets were valid and deserved. I dont try to determine motive for perfectly legal and permissible action. Why trouble yourself with that kind of mindreading?

It goes back to equal justice. If others are allowed to speed through a neighborhood based only on what time of month it is, that's a problem. If speed traps (legal entrapment) are set up to write more tickets, that's a problem. I believe the law should be followed blindly, not used as a political tool and not used as a financial source.

I hope Kyle never HAS to work again, his mental anguish, the part heaped upon him by a political prosecution and lies repeated endlessely by the media have damaged him for life. He will live with PTSD from these events forever.

If he can show his PTSD in court (and I have no doubt this experience left lasting mental scars), then yes, he should be reimbursed for the damage that will cause him in the future. Of course, we're back to the question of who is responsible legally... in this case, I would say it would be BLM/Antifa. BLM and Antifa have no central structure and the members have nothing to go after.

This is the real problem: those who are pressing these false reports and ruining lives willy-nilly are not doing so openly; it is all done through psychological manipulation of weak minds, placing those weak minds in jeopardy instead if those who actually push the agendas. In an ideal world, investigators would ferret out these collusions and bring criminal charges. We do not live in an ideal world, though, and our political situation is such that no such investigation is likely to be forthcoming. We can't even manage to have a fair election, so how can we bring investigative pressure against those in power?

So the question becomes, is it worth changing the very basis of law and order to try and achieve some sort of semi-justice for the few who happen to make the evening news, or is it better to hold to the law and attempt to change the forces that have compromised it? I say the latter. The former places us in the same situation as before, just on the "winning" side temporarily until the other "side" regains power. It's a continual cycle of each "side" enacting and receiving vigilante justice... not what I think of when I think of a peaceful life. More like what happened during the French Revolution.

sending a message to the prosecutors and media not to pull this crap again

That is revenge talking. An eye for an eye. And that leaves the whole world blind.

You want to send a message? Put them in prison for their crimes.

TheRedneck

a reply to: TheRedneck

Then eliminate all traffic fines. Shifting priorities should not be a concern as long as handing out tickets is done legally. That would be the reason for ‘unequal enforcement’ on some days. So what?

Why go after BLM / Antifa in such a nebulous way. Go instead after the people, by name, that slandered him. There are plenty, and their names are known. In fact, he continues to be called a murderer and a white supremacist on public broadcast, for clicks and viewers i.e. PROFIT, even today. That is against civil law. He can and should go after them civilly for all the law allows. You dont like it, have the laws agaisnt slander and liable changed.

Deterrent has always been a reason for punishing offenders. Thats not considered revenge either.

a reply to: BrujaRebooted

Then eliminate all traffic fines. Shifting priorities should not be a concern as long as handing out tickets is done legally. That would be the reason for ‘unequal enforcement’ on some days. So what?

So what?

I'm afraid we're going to have to agree to disagree on this topic. We seem to have reached an impasse, and previous experience tells me you will never shift your position, even if I prove to you you might be in error.

So I will simply stand by my assertion that justice must be blind and the laws must be followed, not only in letter but also in spirit, and thank you for the discussion.

TheRedneck

a reply to: TheRedneck

Thats really not fair. A difference of opinion is one thing. But if Im proven to be incorrect, I have no problem admitting so and changing my opinion. Are you sure you can say the same?

Seems like if the law provides for civil damages, Kyle should get all he can.