Kyle Rittenhouse considers suing Joe Biden over 'white supremacist' claim

[itsnotoutthere]

Mr Biden was one of the first high-profile figures to condemn Mr Rittenhouse for killing two men and wounding another in Kenosha, Wisconsin. 

Kyle Rittenhouse is considering legal action against President Joe Biden for “defaming".

https://www.telegraph.co.uk/world-news/2021/11/23/kyle-rittenhouse-considers-suing-joe-biden-white-supremacist/

Do it do it. 

[Gromdor]

I don't think he can.  That whole government immunity thing.  

[+OverSword]

14 minutes ago, Gromdor said:

I don't think he can.  That whole government immunity thing.  

I think Biden called him a white supremist during the debate so was not in government at the time

[itsnotoutthere]

I'll let you know when I've got the Gofundme page up and running. 

[el midgetron]

Rittenhouse probably gonna come down with a bad case of the China virus considering how much of Hunter’s art China is purchasing,. 

[acidhead]

Sooooo..... It was Trump's fault Brandon called Kyle Rittenhouse a white supremacist???? 

LOL 

 

[Commander CMG]

A white supremacist, shoots 3 white men, and kills kills 2 of them, what kind of **** white supremacist kills white people, and riots break out across America... A black guy drives into a Christmas parade and kills white people.... an no riots... what am I missing? 

Edited November 23, 2021 by Iilaa'mpuul'xem

[Duke Wellington]

34 minutes ago, acidhead said:

Sooooo..... It was Trump's fault Brandon called Kyle Rittenhouse a white supremacist???? 

LOL 

 

You couldn`t make it up!!!

[acidhead]

1 hour ago, Iilaa'mpuul'xem said:

A white supremacist, shoots 3 white men, and kills kills 2 of them, what kind of **** white supremacist kills white people, and riots break out across America... A black guy drives into a Christmas parade and kills white people.... an no riots... what am I missing? 

 

[Agent0range]

That's risky.  EVERY part of his life will be scrutinized.  His social media, his communications.  His friends will be interrogated.  He'd be better off just starting a Gofundme...you know the right is just itching to throw money at him.

[ExpandMyMind]

2 hours ago, acidhead said:

Sooooo..... It was Trump's fault Brandon called Kyle Rittenhouse a white supremacist???? 

LOL 

 

The Democrat politicians are complete idiots. Bringing Trump into every debate will do nothing but turn voters away from them. 

They already seen it in the recent state election. They're going to throw their entire government away.

Idiots.

[ExpandMyMind]

4 minutes ago, Agent0range said:

That's risky.  EVERY part of his life will be scrutinized.  His social media, his communications.  His friends will be interrogated.  He'd be better off just starting a Gofundme...you know the right is just itching to throw money at him.

There's no way that a dude who travelled to another state with a big rifle and the clear intention (horrifying prosecutors aside - the kid was talking about shooting shoplifters 2 weeks before he killed 3 men) of killing people protesting racism doesn't have some shady white supremacist stuff all throughout his personal online profiles.

[+Paranoid Android]

According to lawyers I've been watching about the Rittenhouse case (even those who are staunch Rittenhouse supporters, such as Robert Barnes who until just before the trial was Kyle Rittenhouse's civil attorney) they seem pretty adamant that calling someone a "white supremacist" does not qualify as defamation. Maybe I misunderstood, there's a lot that's happened in this case. But as it is I think it unlikely for Rittenhouse to succeed on any defamation claim. 

[el midgetron]

4 hours ago, acidhead said:

Sooooo..... It was Trump's fault Brandon called Kyle Rittenhouse a white supremacist???? 

LOL 

 

It’s like she circled back around to claiming Rittenhouse is a white Supremacist……

unbelievable. 

 

[Golden Duck]

Just give him Catalina Island and let the tourism industry sort it out.

[el midgetron]

2 hours ago, Agent0range said:

That's risky.  EVERY part of his life will be scrutinized.  His social media, his communications.  His friends will be interrogated. 

Hmmm, seems like that would have happened already due to that high profile court case he was involved in. Considering the prosecution’s modus operandi and the media’s lack of interest factual information, I suppose there is a small chance the fabled treasure trove of Rittenhouse racist content out there just waiting to find it’s forever home. 

[DarkHunter]

2 hours ago, Paranoid Android said:

According to lawyers I've been watching about the Rittenhouse case (even those who are staunch Rittenhouse supporters, such as Robert Barnes who until just before the trial was Kyle Rittenhouse's civil attorney) they seem pretty adamant that calling someone a "white supremacist" does not qualify as defamation. Maybe I misunderstood, there's a lot that's happened in this case. But as it is I think it unlikely for Rittenhouse to succeed on any defamation claim. 

I am no legal expert either but from what I understand the defamation claims are going to focus not so much Kyle Rittenhouse being called any specific term but instead the media purposefully repeating verifiably false information as true and doing no corrections until after the court case was settled.  

As I said I'm no legal expert and dont particularly have any significant interest in the civil cases so havent been paying that much attention.

[el midgetron]

2 hours ago, ExpandMyMind said:

There's no way that a dude who travelled to another state with a big rifle and the clear intention (horrifying prosecutors aside - the kid was talking about shooting shoplifters 2 weeks before he killed 3 men) of killing people protesting racism doesn't have some shady white supremacist stuff all throughout his personal online profiles.

It was a 20 minute drive. He did not travel with the rifle. 
 

The people he shot were not protesting racism. They were hooligans looking to burn stuff down. At least two of the hooligans he encountered were armed as well. Do they also have “clear intentions?”

I have a hard time squaring your image of a murderous opportunist with the Rittenhouse who was cleaning up graffiti and carrying a medic bag. 

[Agent0range]

20 minutes ago, el midgetron said:

It was a 20 minute drive. He did not travel with the rifle. 
 

The people he shot were not protesting racism. They were hooligans looking to burn stuff down. At least two of the hooligans he encountered were armed as well. Do they also have “clear intentions?”

I have a hard time squaring your image of a murderous opportunist with the Rittenhouse who was cleaning up graffiti and carrying a medic bag. 

Do you have proof that the people he shot were looting or burning things?  Maybe Rittenhouse was there to loot and burn things.  You are just saying things without a shred of evidence to back it up.

[el midgetron]

Rosenbaum is on video pushing a dumpster fire. I think it’s a critical point in what happened that night, 

I dunno, it was after dark, a random crowd of people wandering around without signs or organization doesn’t seem like much of a protest, There is something pretty shady about certain people using the death of a black man as a blank check to run amuck. 

[Agent0range]

2 minutes ago, el midgetron said:

There is something pretty shady about certain people using the death of a black man as a blank check to run amuck. 

Absolutely.  Including a random 17 year old with a gun...

[el midgetron]

Just now, Agent0range said:

Absolutely.  Including a random 17 year old with a gun...

I’ve said it before, I don’t think he should have been there.  However, where we disagree is what his intent was.

[Grim Reaper 6]

9 hours ago, Gromdor said:

I don't think he can.  That whole government immunity thing.  

That's the only accurate response I have read so far.

[Tatetopa]

One of the things that made the US exceptional was our Constitution and our rule of law.  Guaranteed rights were the basis of our desire to become independent and find a better way.  That would include the rights citizens have in our judicial system. Doesn't matter if they are the lowest scum or the highest members of society, the vision is that  the law applies to all citizens.  Few people of either extreme have sympathy for looters, rioters and vandals, however our judicial system does not stipulate a death penalty for them  Vigilantism is attractive I must admit, but it is a short term fix that leads to long term erosion of our republic.   We need to fix the problems in our society, but not that way.

The Rittenhouse case may be a landmark redefining self defense.  One might go armed into an area and provoke a reaction  from others. If they draw weapons or physically attack, this case seems to indicate that the party is justified to shoot them because their life is being threatened.  If that had been in effect  on Jan. 6 would capitol police and congresspeople have been justified to shoot all protestors beating on doors inside the capitol  because they felt threatened?

Will this lead to that old Heinlein quote about  "an armed society being a polite society"?   It has not so far.

[Grim Reaper 6]

4 hours ago, Paranoid Android said:

According to lawyers I've been watching about the Rittenhouse case (even those who are staunch Rittenhouse supporters, such as Robert Barnes who until just before the trial was Kyle Rittenhouse's civil attorney) they seem pretty adamant that calling someone a "white supremacist" does not qualify as defamation. Maybe I misunderstood, there's a lot that's happened in this case. But as it is I think it unlikely for Rittenhouse to succeed on any defamation claim. 

You are correct he cant as long as Biden is a sitting President, and he can not be sued for Defamation of Character or Slander while in Office.  This is covered under the Westfall Act Immunity. 

The federal statute commonly known as the Westfall Act accords federal employees absolute immunity from tort claims arising out of acts undertaken in the course of their official duties, 28 U. S. C. §2679(b)(1), and empowers the Attorney General to certify that a federal employee sued for wrongful or negligent conduct "was acting within the scope of his office or employment at the time of the incident out of which the claim arose," §2679(d)(1), (2). Upon such certification, the United States is substituted as defendant in place of the employee, and the action is thereafter governed by the Federal Tort Claims Act. If the action commenced in state court, the Westfall Act calls for its removal to a federal district court, and renders the Attorney General's certification "conclusiv[e] ... for purposes of removal." §2679(d)(2).

Immunity of federal employees from suit (Westfall Act Immunity) - Osborn v. Haley, 549 U.S. 225 (2007) (lsu.edu)