![\"\"](\"https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/angry.net\/blog2\/wp-content\/uploads\/2016\/12\/schadenboner.jpg\")
<\/a><\/p>\n<\/p>\n
First, of course, is dealing with all the flat out lies, slander and libel that the Progressive media and celebrities have been throwing at him. Frankly, people should have learned what happened when you start libeling people from Gawker and Nick Sandmann. Of course, progressives and ability to learn are generally incompatible.<\/p>\n
<\/p>\n
Next, we have the potential of Merrick, \u201cHeinrich Himmler\u201d Garland going after Mr. Rittenhouse on some bogus charges. This is by far the most worrying thing, considering just how corrupt Garland has turned out to be. Fox News has an analysis of this<\/a> written by <\/b>Jonathan Turl<\/b><\/a>ey<\/b><\/a>:<\/p>\n In the aftermath of the Rittenhouse verdict, figures on both sides of the case are threatening new filings and investigations. It seems likely that the case will move into a new stage of litigation, particularly civil litigation. However, advocates on both sides may be overstating the basis for a Rittenhouse 2.0.\u00a0 These lawsuits can come with risks and considerable costs. That is why Voltaire once lamented “I was never ruined but twice: once when I lost a lawsuit, and once when I won one.”<\/b><\/p>\n Regarding the lawsuits, it isn\u2019t beyond the realm of possibility that the families of the criminals that Mr. Rittenhouse was forced to shoot might come after him. However, considering all the details that came out before and during the trial, those suits are very likely to fail with legal fees awarded to the Rittenhouse lawyers.<\/p>\n The other problem, of course, is Heinrich Garland and his Gestapo goons known as the Federal Bureau of Investigation. He\u2019s already turned them loose on parents who demand accountability from school boards and the education establishment, and he\u2019s been sending them out to threaten and intimidate protesters who were attending the Trump rally January 6th<\/sup> and went no where near the Capitol building. (I saw one interview where they were trying to lay a perjury trap. The subject said he wasn\u2019t at the capitol, meaning the building where everything took place. The thugs with a badge were tying to get him to say he wasn\u2019t in Washington. First rule, never talk to the FBI without a lawyer, period)<\/p>\n Immediately following the verdict, House Judiciary Committee Chairman Jerry Nadler called for the Justice Department to investigate the “miscarriage of justice.<\/a>” Others have called for a federal civil rights case against Rittenhouse.<\/b><\/p>\n No Nads Nadler is is absolute vermin and pond scum. There was no miscarriage of justice, unless you want to talk about the filing of charges in what was clearly a case of self defense, or the massive prosecutorial misconduct during the trial that was so blatant the judge slammed the prosecutors for it. (Ignoring Kyle Rittenhouse\u2019s 5th<\/sup> amendment rights for one, withholding evidence from the defense team for another) Thankfully, the Department of InJustice doesn\u2019t answer to that fat little toad. The do, unfortunately, answer to the meat puppet in the oval office and his string pullers might decide that going after Kyle Rittenhouse is a great idea.<\/p>\n The Justice Department does not have an office for the prosecution of “miscarriages of justice” due to errant jury decisions.<\/b><\/p>\n I\u2019m sure that Heinrich Himmler Garland is looking at ways to correct that even as we speak.<\/p>\n Rittenhouse was acquitted on state charges by a state jury. Moreover, while some have called for reducing self-defense protections, the jury applied the law as it currently appears on the books. It is not allowed to simply ignore the law to seek our own criminal justice rules.<\/b><\/p>\n The Rittenhouse jury faithfully applied the Wisconsin law and came to a well-founded verdict of acquittal. It is a dangerous precedent to investigate jury decisions simply because you disagree with their decisions.<\/b><\/p>\n It\u2019s flat out unconstitutional as well. There is a thing called \u201cJury Nullification.\u201d While it doesn\u2019t apply in this case, it has happened in the past. One of the most notable ones was the O.J. Simpson murder trial where he was acquitted, although there was a ton of very damning evidence. (The reasons for this are far to involved to go into here) In the Rittenhouse case, if the jury had decided to ignore the law and convict, the Judge would have had no choice but to overturn their conviction. If he didn\u2019t, the appellate court would have.<\/p>\n There is also no clear basis for a civil rights prosecution. Rittenhouse is White and shot three White men. He was not accused of a hate crime. Moreover, he is not a member of law enforcement or government agency, so he did not deprive anyone of their civil rights under federal law.<\/strong><\/p>\n Even if Heinrich Himmler Garland did try to go after Kyle Rittenhouse on civil rights charges, the fact that Mr. Rittenhouse was obviously running for his life from that mob, and only fired when he was attacked with weapons, would indicate that it was his civil rights that were being violated, not the murderous thugs going after him.<\/p>\n There is also another problem for the Garland DoIJ if they decided to go after Kyle Rittenhouse. There is a very good chance that a very large group of citizens might form a militia and either protect him from arrest, or, if he was being held, breaking him out. Either way would probably lead to a full on gun battle with the odds of the Federal Agents prevailing, or even surviving, being very low. See the Bundy Ranch incident when the Feds abruptly pulled out.<\/p>\n Rittenhouse could face lawsuits from the families of the deceased or from Gaige Grosskreutz, who survived being shot in the arm. That includes wrongful death actions much like the litigation against O.J. Simpson after he was acquitted for the killings of his ex-wife, Nicole Brown Simpson, and her friend Ronald Goldman.\u00a0However, he was then found guilty in a torts lawsuit brought by the Goldman family and ordered to pay $33.5 million.\u00a0Those damages later rose to $58 million<\/a>.<\/b><\/p>\n Again, there is this little thing called evidence, and the criminal trial provided a ton of it. It wasn\u2019t Kyle Rittenhouse chasing after those three, it was those three and others coming after him. He was trying to descalate the situation and when the mob kept coming, he tried to get away. Grosskreutz himself pretty much destroyed any civil action when he admitted under oath that Kyle Rittenhouse didn\u2019t fire on him until he pointed his unlawfully possessed pistol at him. (Grosskreutz had apparently been in some legal hot water and wasn\u2019t supposed to have a gun)<\/p>\n All three men attacked or threatened Rittenhouse before he used his weapon. The common law protects not just self-defense but mistaken self-defense where a person may have erroneously (but reasonably) thought that he was under attack.<\/b><\/p>\n I would think that someone trying to beat his head in with a skateboard, and another trying to kick his head off his shoulders, (Rittenhouse fired at but missed that one), with a third trying to get his rifle from him, (Who had previously threatened to kill Rittenhouse), and finally the 4th<\/sup> one pulling a gun and pointing it at him, (That would be \u201cUnicep\u201d Grosskreutz), would seem to indicate he was under attack<\/p>\n When attacked, Rittenhouse is authorized under common law to use commensurate force.\u00a0 While Wisconsin does not have a “Stand Your Ground” law, the\u00a0common law has always recognized such a right\u00a0<\/a>and did not require a person to retreat before using force. <\/b><\/p>\n While Kyle Rittenhouse may not have had a \u201cDuty to retreat,\u201d he was definitely trying to get away from the mob. (Damn all those videos and pictures) There is also the problem that the attackers all had criminal records for violence. Of course, Mr. Rittenhouse would have no way to know that, but it doesn\u2019t matter. They were trying to disarm and either beat him senseless or flat out kill him.<\/p>\n This brings us to the what actions Kyle Rittenhouse can take against all those who, bluntly, defamed him and are continuing to do so. The probably answer is the \u201cNick Sandmann Solution.\u201d There is currently no way for Kyle Rittenhouse to go after the District Attorney or the prosecutors in civil court. (There might be actions he can take with the State bar, especially after the judge landed on them so hard) He does have plenty of other targets to go after in court.<\/p>\n There is no question that Rittenhouse has been subject to false and harmful claims in the media. Indeed, many watching the trial were surprised by the sharp disconnect between what they had seen on the case in the media and what was being presented in court. Such defamation cases however are notoriously difficult to win and the odds are against Rittenhouse in prevailing on these characterizations of prejudice or guilt. <\/b><\/p>\n I disagree, and we\u2019re beginning to see plaintiffs in these cases either settling for major money or winning outright. We also have the attempt by MSNBC to \u201cDox\u201d the jury and getting banned from the courthouse.<\/p>\n It is likely that Rittenhouse will be considered a limited public figure or public figure given the notoriety of the case and his public defenses.<\/b><\/p>\n That is debatable and again, we have Nick Sandmann to thank for this. Nick Sandmann did not seek to become a public figure, (And the case that basically gives the press free reign to flat out lie about someone needs to be revisited), he was pulled into the limelight against his will. The same goes for Kyle Rittenhouse. He did not seek to be in the public eye.<\/p>\n The Supreme Court has held that public figure status applies when\u00a0 someone “thrust[s] himself into the vortex of [the] public issue [and] engage[s] the public\u2019s attention in an attempt to influence its outcome.”<\/b><\/p>\n Again, that was a bad decision, however let\u2019s go with it. How did Kyle Rittenhouse \u201cThrust himself into the public eye?\u201d The answer is, he didn\u2019t. He was pulled in kicking and screaming, so to speak. As I recall, he didn\u2019t give any interviews until the conclusion of the trial.<\/p>\n Also, there is the issue of the accusations by celebrities and others that had no basis in fact and were disproven. They still haven\u2019t retracted those statements. Again, let\u2019s look at the Sandmann case. Jaime Lee Curtis, like all of the Hollyweird elites, let fly at Nick Sandmann when she saw the videos. However, when it came out that the video in question had been edited, and she saw the full, unedited version, she realized that her view was wrong and she apologized. Sandmann\u2019s lawyers accepted it.<\/p>\n A limited-purpose public figure status applies if someone voluntarily “draw[s] attention to himself” or allows himself to become part of a controversy “as a fulcrum to create public discussion.”\u00a0Wolston v. Reader\u2019s Digest Association, 443 U.S. 157, 168 (1979).<\/b><\/p>\n Again, Rittenhouse didn\u2019t intend to draw attention to himself. As they say, he was the victim of circumstance. Turley goes into the Sandmann case to some extent, but doesn\u2019t quite make it to the finish line. CNN and the Washington Compost both settled rather then go to court, and while we don\u2019t know for how much, it\u2019s a safe bet it was for millions. Why did they settle? In all probability, their lawyers took one look at what the \u201cJournalists\u201d did and knew they were going to lose.<\/p>\n Mr. Turley is a professor of Law at George Washington University. Looking at the Wikipedia page on him, (Yes, I know. Here, have some salt), it doesn\u2019t appear that he\u2019s done a lot of actual work in a courtroom. He also appears to be big in Democrat, Progressive and Liberal circles. Most of the piece in the Washington Times is fairly good writing, but I think his conclusions are probably wrong. I have little doubt that Kyle Rittenhouse\u2019s lawyers are going to sue. The question is, Who and for how much? One big target is Dementia Joe himself. He of the loose lips and bowels slandered Kyle Rittenhouse during the campaign. As such, he has no immunity, implied or otherwise.<\/p>\n I also suspect one of the targets will be MSNBC, and they are going to be hammered. CNN will be on that list as well. With Nick Sandmann, the case revolved around the video that the Main Stream Media posted that had been edited to make it appear that Sandmann was the instigator. When the full, raw video was released, the entire story flipped. It wasn\u2019t that CNN and the other MSM morons made a mistake either. They knew the video wasn\u2019t complete when they posted it and made the accusations.<\/p>\n With Kyle Rittenhouse, it\u2019s been even worse, and is continuing. For his lawyers, it\u2019s going to be a \u201cTarget Rich Environment\u201d and while it may take years, Kyle is young and has plenty of time. Mr. Turley also doesn\u2019t seem to be considering that the courts are starting to revisit the Sullivan decision<\/a>. It might come to pass that the Supreme Court reverses itself. If that happens, then many news agencies are going to be crushed, and deservedly so. It\u2019s one thing to make a mistake, it\u2019s quite another to make things up. There is a reason people generally disbelieve what the Main Stream Media presents as honest information. It usually isn\u2019t.<\/p>\n Thatisall<\/p>\n ~The Angry Webmaster~<\/b><\/i><\/p>\n<\/p>\n<\/p>\n<\/a><\/p>\n<\/p>\n<\/p>\n (2<\/strong> votes, average: 5.00<\/strong> out of 5)
<\/span><\/span>Loading...<\/span>\n