How many defamation cases did OJ win?

rittenhouse gets a million from the state now, (bail money via crowdfunding)

"under the agreement, $920,000 will be paid, in trust, to Richards & Dimmer, the Racine law firm that defended Rittenhouse. Another $925,000 will go to #FightBack Foundation. Schroder, who posed with Rittenhouse soon after he was released on bail, gets back $150,000 he contributed."


https://eu.usatoday.com/story/news/n...gs/9251905002/

And trump was pro rittenhouse this is what he said:



thats not the same tape I saw. wtf did trump see there?

I saw a 17 year old idiot running around with a rifle in a dark alley ( illegally ) he got attacked because he was wearing that by 2 unarmed men, one with a skateboard. the person with the deadly weapon in public should get punished.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kenosha_unrest_shooting


we already had this, just wondering wtf trump saw there.

Looks like he was suing a lot. Not sure how many he won.

Oj was found guilty in a civil case though, which gives one more of a leg to stand on. And again I strictly mean after the acquittal of KR, if say, any pundit on tv referred to him as such and mentioned it merely outa curiosity after slighted made the point re being called a murderer.
I'm not impressed with his attempts to profit via defamation lawsuits, as if his being called names is somehow worse than what happened. It strikes me as an attempt at glorification and kinda creepy, actually.

OJ and Rittenhouse are idiots who escaped justice.

yes and no.. im not a defamation expert by any means, but calling someone who killed people a murderer is most likely an opinion not defamation.

the declarant would most likely be OPINING on their view of the case which is fine. they aren't likely to be construed as saying they falsely have some kind of special inside information and that he's ACTUALLY a murderer.

it's the difference between me saying that i watched the depp heard trial and ME saying, "the jury got it wrong johnny depp is a wife beating piece of ****", and amber heard actually being successfully sued for saying the same thing. depp would be unlikely to win against me in that context.

Did you watch any of the Rittenhouse trial? It certainly seems as if you must not have if you came to that conclusion.

https://ktt2.com/wel-made-a-kyle-rit...ntina-32523133

Ya I think he would be looking more to the case of the MAGA Kid vs CNN, which was for $275MM and settled by CNN for an undisclosed amount.

That is my guess at what his lawyers are looking at. Whether they will succeed or not, i have zero opinion.

God bless Kyle

yeah i would highly doubt that case made seven figures in settlement.

He's an idiot kid surrounded by a bunch of vultures gaslighting him into thinking he's being vilified by the press so they can either get paid or use him for political fodder.

One day he'll look back with regret that he didn't just let good enough be good enough. Once again, his mother is letting him do stupid stuff without realizing it's stupid stuff.

We don't know but I highly doubt they would settle for less than seven figures when the sticker amount of the suit is $275MM.

This would be CNN litigation Insurance company decision and I doubt they want children on the stand, in front of a jury, who were in fact slandered, being subject to a jury decisions. Corporations vs Kids is not a great case to defend against.

did you see that kid? everyone hated him just by looking at him.. dude was the least sympathetic person ever. let me put him on the stand in all my trials..

rittenhouse just looks like chud.. that Covington kid looked like a huge rich douche.

no hes a true believer. and his experiences have absolutely made these believes fully entrenched.

but ya, hes propagandized as a kid. its just, he wont look back with regret as, unlike with Zimmerman, this will lead to notoriety for his entire life. he will likely win high office.

maybe he would have changed his mind at some point but I doubt it. people who act like this at 19 dont look back with regret.

I wouldn't compare Rittenhouse to O.J.

Forrest Gump maybe.

The acquittal is largely irrelevant. I don't think in the history of the country a single person who's been arrested and on trial for killing people has won a defamation suit against a third party for calling them a murderer. If he had a case against Biden or whoever, he would have a much better case against the state for arresting and trying him in the first place. There the damages are trivial to show. But we know his arrest and trial was 100% reasonable and in good faith regardless of what the jury says so he has 0 case. The Covington kid was never charged with anything so in a completely different category and I'm guessing settled for nuisance money because they knew they didn't have a good case for serious damages.

Mark Geragos, a celebrity lawyer who is most famous for representing Kaepernick against the NFL, was doing a podcast around that time and guessed the CNN settlement was around $2M, which could be considered "nuisance money" given how high these settlements can go.

However, he did think the MAGA kid had a legitimate case, as there was evidence that CNN (and other media outlets who also quietly settled) were deliberately misleading their audiences as far as what actually had happened. There was evidence they had seen video that hadn't been released to the public yet in context to know what they were presenting wasn't an accurate depiction of events, and they went forward with their preferred narrative anyways.

For the Rittenhouse case there is no evidence that anyone who disparaged him was doing anything other than giving their honest opinion of what happened based on what they saw, so it is hard to argue defamation under those circumstances.

The real amusing thing with the media portrayal of the MAGA kid incident is that if you actually watch the entire video of what was goin on at that time, there was a group of "Black Israelite" activists (I dont remember the exact name of the group, but it was something like that) who were throwing extremely vulgar racist and sexist verbal abuse at the Indian American activists (so basically they were doing exactly what the media was insinuating the MAGA kid was doing x100) and the media just completely ignored this and it never even came up, as it didn't fit the preferred narrative.

Yes i read something similar and listened to a lawyer(s) talking about the case, a long time ago, and there was a belief that CNN and some other outlets faced actual real exposure here despite the high bar. The key reason being that apparently it was clear they held back a bunch of video footage that showed the Indigenous man, in fact was the one to approach the Maga kids, who were off doing their own thing, he then got in their face and started banging his drum.

CNN footage and discussions were all about the Maga kids confronting the man and violating his space and some of their opinion hosts saying that constituted them threatening the Indigenous man, when in fact he could have just walked away.

You couple that with the fact you most legal consultants (lawyers) would not want to see a giant Multinational in a court case versus a bunch of kids to begin with, and how that is never a good look. Add to that, that juries tend to be more sympathetic of individuals VS MultiNationals, and often award significant punitive damages, and would likely be more sympathetic than normal due to it being kids, and you have a recipe for the legal consultants (Lawyers) advising the Insurance COmpany to 'settle this and make it go away', rather than risking it in court.

I think there is a reflexive thing done by people on the left, centre/left to not want to believe it but it seems far more likely they did not file such a suit and accept little to nothing when they know just the airing of the case would make CNN look terrible.

If one side had high motivation to settle it would be CNN, imo.

Their case was slam dunk. Read up.
CNN was going to have to answer to a jury made up of people not chosen from their bubble, about what they did to that kid.
They settled because it would have taken forever and life is short but don't for a split second write off the case that kid had against several media entities.
He is why those laws exist.

aight, i'll bite. what were his damages?

His injuries or his damages?

Start with IIED, defamation of character, etc.
All SLAM DUNK given what was said about that kid in the public media and how he was characterized, relative to what actually happened.

Those claims have a very narrow pathway in this country given our free speech parameters and he was squarely on that pathway.

it looks like you are taking a brief hiatus, but to reply..

damages as in what he can recoup from a court case.. that's the first question any lawyer will ask you. you need to be able to explain your damages.

IIED is really hard to get in most cases, especially when its not real like this case. does he have mental health issues that he is seeing a therapist for? what REAL emotional damage did he suffer? like if i hit your kid with my car AND you see me do it, then you have a "slam dunk" for IIED/NIED..

what is his character worth in damages? he's a random nobody high school kid. he's not johnny depp losing out on movie contracts. He got MORE popular from this incident not less. if anything he made money off the incident rather than lost.. so maybe he doesnt get into the exact college he wanted to? so like couple hundred k?