Quote:
Originally Posted by Trayderjoe
Actually I never said that the rioting was condoned, but that it was not condemned. I similarly pointed out that there was no condemnation of the adults that attacked Rittenhouse, nor was there condemnation for the MSM that reported misinformation as facts, such that other posters on TOTV repeated those "facts" in their attacks on Rittenhouse.
However, I did see posts inferring that Rittenhouse was " flashing the "OK" sign — a gesture that has been co-opted by known white supremacist groups", and that " he was awaiting trial for killing people at a Black Lives Matter protest....he was there illegally carrying a weapon now he was again breaking the law by drinking in a bar"
So apparently up until the cited post above, it was a protest (not a riot) and the weapon was illegal, which turned out to be.....an incorrect statement that was made in advance of the trial and the facts of the trial.
As far as MSM being "protected" from lawsuit, two different media outlets that I know of, settled out of court in the Sandman case. Sandman, and now Rittenhouse, were NOT public figures and my understanding is that as such, there is a different standard the media can be held to in their "reporting". |
There is no reasoning with a closed mind.
"A protest not a riot," Martin Luther King proved that PEACEFUL PROTESTS can be done.
It takes GREAT leadership to keep a group from becoming a mob. The videos show clearly the three shot were attacking Rittenhouse. Their previous records show all three have a history.
As far as Sandman and the DAMAGE MONEY HE WAS PAID. The case was settled because both parties agreed to the negotiated settlement. That is actually common practice. The press decided it was in THEIR best interest to settle. Were their a trial,
their past history would be reported. It would be lengthy, trial of press bias.
Rittenhouse perhaps more of an issue, we have right to bear arms, we have race, we have our leaders commenting, perhaps, causing fueling the now RIOTS and perhaps not mentioned by many the POLICE ACTION or lack there of. Will the, sure to be, suit for DAMAGES be settled out of court that is a choice that will be made by BOTH parties. My opinion, the posts show clearly that we will never, agree on, right to RIOT, right to bear arms, race, or the right of press BIAS. All have been issues throughout HISTORY. Any attempt at SETTLEMENTS will not be accepted by all. That in itself is part of the problem.
Both the second amendment and the first amendment-no national religion, right assemble, freedom of speech are very broad and are tempered by case law. There are no shortage of legal conflicts. The right to bear arms does not include all arms. Contrary to our biased press you cannot own an ASSAULT WEAPON which is by definition an automatic weapon. Freedom of speech, does not include RIOT. The Rittenhouse trial will be a major legal precedent.
You more clearly have the right to defend your life with lethal force. A protest does not allow you to attack others.