Rittenhouse to sue Biden campaign for libel

[*bfine32*]

(10-01-2020, 02:12 PM)PhilHos Wrote: I'm not a lawyer but I don't think that qualifies him as a public figure, in the legal sense.

I just watched the clip and I think all can agree distasteful at best. I will saying during the Debate I missed Biden being Wallace's cheerleader

Wallace "Are you willing to do it"

Biden "Do it, do it".

The biggest issue I see is when Biden commented on the video he only stated "White Supremacists" 

[oncemoreuntothejimbreech]

(10-01-2020, 02:12 PM)PhilHos Wrote: I'm not a lawyer but I don't think that qualifies him as a public figure, in the legal sense.

You and I and everyone else in this thread knows exactly who this person is out of 325M Americans and he has already influenced governmental public relations policy.

[Benton]

(10-01-2020, 12:37 PM)PhilHos Wrote: They may be on the same side of opposing social reforms but it's still slander/libel to claim he's something he's not especially something as charged as a white supremacist.

Again, the Wallace quote is referencing white supremacists and militias. 

I guess he could file suit against Wallace and Fox News (and even that would be a long shot), but that suit won't have a lot of muster against Biden.

[Benton]

(10-01-2020, 12:36 PM)PhilHos Wrote: How many of those feature private citizens without their consent?

Generally (and I say that because I don't know their specific state laws) but if you're in a public place and being filmed/photo'ed from public property or property you have permission to be on, no consent is needed. Generally when you see video and the faces are blurred out, it's because it was shot on private property (a store parking lot, inside a bar, etc) and the photographer didn't get consent.

[Benton]

(10-01-2020, 01:00 PM)PhilHos Wrote: The "without consent" wasn't the point I was trying to make but I neglected to include the actual point I wanted to make.  I meant making fun of private citizens. (That's what I get for trying to post at work inbetween customers.)

Let me try again:
How many of those include slanderous attacks on private citizens?

It's not slander if he's a self-described militia member. 

If I identify myself as chef and someone calls me a chef in a video, I can't sue them saying it damages my character to say I'm a chef. I mean, yeah, I can sue them, it's just not likely I'll convince a jury (and even less likely to convince a judge) that you calling me what I called myself is any more damaging than me calling me what I called myself.

[*bfine32*]

(10-01-2020, 04:24 PM)Benton Wrote: Again, the Wallace quote is referencing white supremacists and militias. 

I guess he could file suit against Wallace and Fox News (and even that would be a long shot), but that suit won't have a lot of muster against Biden.

But when Biden commented in the video he said only white supremacists

[Benton]

(10-01-2020, 04:33 PM)bfine32 Wrote: But when Biden commented in the video he said only white supremacists

And when rittenhouses picture is displayed, it's during the Wallace quote about militias. 

[*bfine32*]

(10-01-2020, 04:56 PM)Benton Wrote: And when rittenhouses picture is displayed, it's during the Wallace quote about militias. 

As I said: we'll see. Seems like only yesterday folks were mad at the mean kid in the Red Hat.

Biden's comment can easily be shown to be more slanderous than the video

Wallace may have lumped them together, but the folks that put out and commented on the video did not. 

[oncemoreuntothejimbreech]

(10-01-2020, 05:58 PM)bfine32 Wrote: As I said: we'll see. Seems like only yesterday folks were mad at the mean kid in the Red Hat.

Biden's comment can easily be shown to be more slanderous than the video

Wallace may have lumped them together, but the folks that put out and commented on the video did not. 

Everyone give a slow clap for bfine’s unbiased opinion.

[Benton]

(10-01-2020, 05:58 PM)bfine32 Wrote: As I said: we'll see. Seems like only yesterday folks were mad at the mean kid in the Red Hat.

Biden's comment can easily be shown to be more slanderous than the video

Wallace may have lumped them together, but the folks that put out and commented on the video did not. 

The sandmann issue isn't related and the suit wouldn't be the same. He was claiming the media only showed a portion of a video to make it look like he did something he didn't do; rittenhouse is saying he did something but is suing biden because Wallace lumped in two different groups, one of which he claims to be a member of.

As far as bidens comment, I don't recall him saying rittenhouse was a white supremacist. He may have, but I haven't seen that.

[*bfine32*]

(10-01-2020, 06:27 PM)Benton Wrote: The sandmann issue isn't related and the suit wouldn't be the same. He was claiming the media only showed a portion of a video to make it look like he did something he didn't do; rittenhouse is saying he did something but is suing biden because Wallace lumped in two different groups, one of which he claims to be a member of.

As far as bidens comment, I don't recall him saying rittenhouse was a white supremacist. He may have, but I haven't seen that.

It was Biden's Twitter caption to the video that Rittenhouse was in. It could definitely be construed as  "unjustly unfavorable" (libel) especially pretrial.

As I said; we'll see. 

[BmorePat87]

(10-01-2020, 04:56 PM)Benton Wrote: And when rittenhouses picture is displayed, it's during the Wallace quote about militias. 

Same quote, but it was technically when Wallace said "Kenosha" in reference to violence occurring. He was absolutely at Kenosha and committed violence. 

[BmorePat87]

Speaking of Rittenhouse, DHS was pushing officials to speak positively of Rittenhouse following his killing of two men in Kenosha.

https://www.nbcnews.com/politics/national-security/internal-document-shows-trump-officials-were-told-make-comments-sympathetic-n1241581

[SunsetBengal]

(10-01-2020, 07:36 PM)BmorePat87 Wrote: Speaking of Rittenhouse, DHS was pushing officials to speak positively of Rittenhouse following his killing of two men in Kenosha.

https://www.nbcnews.com/politics/national-security/internal-document-shows-trump-officials-were-told-make-comments-sympathetic-n1241581

Why wouldn't they?  He's a juvenile, who's yet to have his day in court.  For all we know, he let the comment "let the moment radicalize you" get to his head, and he took it seriously.

[GMDino]

(10-01-2020, 07:36 PM)BmorePat87 Wrote: Speaking of Rittenhouse, DHS was pushing officials to speak positively of Rittenhouse following his killing of two men in Kenosha.

https://www.nbcnews.com/politics/national-security/internal-document-shows-trump-officials-were-told-make-comments-sympathetic-n1241581

Ah..."impartiality" at its best!  LMAO!

[BmorePat87]

(10-01-2020, 08:15 PM)SunsetBengal Wrote: Why wouldn't they?  He's a juvenile, who's yet to have his day in court.  For all we know, he let the comment "let the moment radicalize you" get to his head, and he took it seriously.

Federal law enforcement doesn't usually take a position on pending criminal cases they are not prosecuting, especially not by crafting a defense of someone facing criminal charges and encouraging agents to present these talking points to create a new narrative.

I read one source that suggested it was merely a briefing on what WAS being said.

[Benton]

(10-01-2020, 08:15 PM)SunsetBengal Wrote: Why wouldn't they?  He's a juvenile, who's yet to have his day in court.  For all we know, he let the comment "let the moment radicalize you" get to his head, and he took it seriously.

No issue with federal officials asking federal law enforcement officers to sell a narrative? 

Quote:In preparing Homeland Security officials for questions about Rittenhouse from the media, the document suggests that they note that he "took his rifle to the scene of the rioting to help defend small business owners."
...

Four former Homeland Security officials, two of whom worked for Republican administrations, said it was unusual for law enforcement officials to be instructed to weigh in on a case involving a particular group or individual before investigations had concluded.

The federal government appears to be building a case for Rittenhouse's defense, pushing federal officials to say he was acting in self defense to influence public opinion. Which, while not unheard of, isn't the norm. And it's not the way the branches of government are designed to operate. If the executive branch needs to intervene, there are ways it can. Legally. But, typically, they don't try to muddle the judicial process.


Edit to add: Because it's going to be a first response, yes, we all remember Obama saying his kid would be a black kid in a hoody. A- Obama shouldn't have even done that much, but I think he dipped his toe in tainting that water to avoid further violence... you know, the kind we're seeing now where the POTUS shouts it's all coming from the left despite incidents like Rittenhouse. And, B- Saying your kid would have looked like a kid who was questionably shot is in no way similar to instructing federal law enforcement officers to have specific talking points in regard to an active homicide investigation.

[Sociopathicsteelerfan]

(10-01-2020, 06:00 PM)oncemoreuntothejimbreech Wrote: Everyone give a slow clap for bfine’s unbiased opinion.

While I get what your aiming for here, there are left leaning posters easily, if not more, biased than bfine and I've never seen them called out in similar fashion,  An inconsistent opinion is a worthless opinion.

[oncemoreuntothejimbreech]

(10-02-2020, 02:23 AM)Sociopathicsteelerfan Wrote: While I get what your aiming for here, there are left leaning posters easily, if not more, biased than bfine and I've never seen them called out in similar fashion,  An inconsistent opinion is a worthless opinion.

Really? Never seen it, huh?

(09-29-2020, 11:04 PM)bfine32 Wrote: We're lucky to have Pat's unbiased commentary 

(09-29-2020, 11:41 PM)bfine32 Wrote: Let's all give it up for Pat's unbiased commentary throughout..

You’ve got to be shittin’ me?

[Sociopathicsteelerfan]

(10-02-2020, 02:42 AM)oncemoreuntothejimbreech Wrote: Really? Never seen it, huh?





You’ve got to be shittin’ me?

 I clearly meant by our more non-biased brethren.  The condemnation for perceived extremes is a bit one sided here.