The Kyle Rittenhouse trial in Kenosha
-
@jon-nyc said in The Kyle Rittenhouse trial in Kenosha:
That’s not the point. The point is that a not-guilty verdict doesn’t save you from civil liability, which is a much lower bar. I’d say the odds are better than even that Rittenhouse will lose at least one civil suit. Perhaps multiple.
There's no one who would have a legal standing to sue HIM civilly. The parents of those he shot would be the only ones with standing, but they lost that footing the moment their son made the decision to cause rittenhouse to need to defend himself. If you attack me and I kill you to stop you from harming me, your family can't turn around and sue me in civil court, especially if I've been found to have acted in self defense.
The only one with any standing in a civil suit is rittenhouse himself, not against the families of the ones who threatened him, but against those who lied about him and harmed his good name.
-
Denver attorney Milo Schwab represents two of those who were shot.
“A criminal case and civil case are different, but we are reaching for larger questions,” he told CBS4’s Rick Sallinger in an interview before testimony in the criminal trial began.
His clients are the family of Joseph Rosenbaum, one of those who died as well as Gaige Grosskreutz who was wounded by Rittenhouse’s gun. He has already filed a lawsuit against Kenosha authorities and its police.
Following the not guilty verdict Schwab and co-counsel Kimberley Motley issued the following statement:
“Today we grieve for the families of those slain by Kyle Rittenhouse. Anthony Huber and Joseph Rosenbaum did not deserve to die that night. For now, we ask for peace from everyone hurting and that the public respect the privacy of the victims and their families. That night in Kenosha, Gaige Grosskreutz, Anthony Huber, and many others acted heroically. They did not seek violence, but to end violence. What we need right now is justice, not more violence. While today’s verdict may mean justice delayed, it will not mean justice denied. We are committed to uncovering the truth of that night and holding those responsible to account.”
-
https://news.yahoo.com/could-kyle-rittenhouse-face-civil-012735921.html
If Rittenhouse were taken to civil trial for wrongful death, the teen could claim self-defense, as he did during the criminal case. He has said that he went to Kenosha to protect property from rioters but that he came under attack and feared for his life when he shot three people, two of them fatally.
But the burden of proof civil plaintiffs need to make, by a preponderance of evidence rather than beyond a reasonable doubt, is much lower than what Kenosha prosecutors faced during the criminal trial, legal experts say.
"In a civil case you just have to prove negligence," said Rory Little, a professor at the University of California Hastings College of Law. "Did his conduct fall below the standard of care that the average person would have?"
Rittenhouse "could say, 'I didn't have the intent to kill anyone — I just panicked,'" Little added. "The jury could still say, 'We didn't think the average person would do what you did.' If your conduct is judged to be less than that, you lose."
A civil action would also allow a jury to examine a broader range of evidence.
In the criminal case against Rittenhouse, Judge Bruce Schroeder barred jurors from considering Rittenhouse's links to the sometimes-violent, far-right Proud Boys and from seeing a video that prosecutors said showed him injuring a teenage girl.
Instead, jurors were told to focus on the few moments before the shootings — or what Little called "a narrow piece of the day's action."
"In a civil case, you can broaden the field," he said. "You can look into things like, what was he doing there?"
-
@larry said in The Kyle Rittenhouse trial in Kenosha:
@jon-nyc said in The Kyle Rittenhouse trial in Kenosha:
That’s not the point. The point is that a not-guilty verdict doesn’t save you from civil liability, which is a much lower bar. I’d say the odds are better than even that Rittenhouse will lose at least one civil suit. Perhaps multiple.
There's no one who would have a legal standing to sue HIM civilly. The parents of those he shot would be the only ones with standing, but they lost that footing the moment their son made the decision to cause rittenhouse to need to defend himself. If you attack me and I kill you to stop you from harming me, your family can't turn around and sue me in civil court, especially if I've been found to have acted in self defense.
The only one with any standing in a civil suit is rittenhouse himself, not against the families of the ones who threatened him, but against those who lied about him and harmed his good name.
That’s just factually incorrect. The criminal trial did not establish some immutable truth, it just established that the prosecution didn’t meet the burden of proof. The civil suits will have a much lower burden and may well be successful.
-
If the burden is satisfied, in a civil trial, by establishing that Rittenhouse intentionally put himself into a situation which increased the chance of him shooting someone, then he'll lose the case. I suppose people will fall out politically in their answer to that question.
-
@jon-nyc said in The Kyle Rittenhouse trial in Kenosha:
Rittenhouse will lose at least one civil suit.
There isn't a democrat in this country that wouldn't love to award some money to families of the evil eliminated by Mr. Rittenhouse.
The only challenge is jury selection.
-
The only one that might possibly be able to make a case is the last guy, who testified that he was shot AFTER pointing a gun at Rittenhouse. The other two shootings he fired on after he was attacked in each case.
Me/rry/Christmas
-
@lufins-dad said in The Kyle Rittenhouse trial in Kenosha:
the last guy
Was that the guy that pointed a gun at him? Grosskreutz?
Or was it the guy who hit him with a skateboard?
Or was it the guy who said, "If I ever get you alone, I'm going to kill you, nigger?"
-
Grosskreutz
Me/rry/Christmas
-
@lufins-dad said in The Kyle Rittenhouse trial in Kenosha:
Grosskreutz
Yeah, just to be clear, the guy who had no legal right to carry a firearm and pointed it at Rittenhouse.
"Now look here, you Baltic gas passer... " - Mik, 6/14/08
The saying, "Lite is just one damn thing after another," is a gross understatement. The damn things overlap.
-
@george-k said in The Kyle Rittenhouse trial in Kenosha:
@lufins-dad said in The Kyle Rittenhouse trial in Kenosha:
Grosskreutz
Yeah, just to be clear, the guy who had no legal right to carry a firearm and pointed it at Rittenhouse.
After feigning a surrender motion by putting his hands up and waiting for Rittenhouse to start lowering the rifle…
-
@jon-nyc said in The Kyle Rittenhouse trial in Kenosha:
@larry said in The Kyle Rittenhouse trial in Kenosha:
@jon-nyc said in The Kyle Rittenhouse trial in Kenosha:
That’s not the point. The point is that a not-guilty verdict doesn’t save you from civil liability, which is a much lower bar. I’d say the odds are better than even that Rittenhouse will lose at least one civil suit. Perhaps multiple.
There's no one who would have a legal standing to sue HIM civilly. The parents of those he shot would be the only ones with standing, but they lost that footing the moment their son made the decision to cause rittenhouse to need to defend himself. If you attack me and I kill you to stop you from harming me, your family can't turn around and sue me in civil court, especially if I've been found to have acted in self defense.
The only one with any standing in a civil suit is rittenhouse himself, not against the families of the ones who threatened him, but against those who lied about him and harmed his good name.
That’s just factually incorrect. The criminal trial did not establish some immutable truth, it just established that the prosecution didn’t meet the burden of proof. The civil suits will have a much lower burden and may well be successful.
No, THAT is what's incorrect. The criminal trial established that he acted in self defense, that the dead guys attacked him, and that he tried to run away rather than shoot. To claim this was a situation where the prosecution simply failed to meet the burden of proof is asinine.
-
-
@copper said in The Kyle Rittenhouse trial in Kenosha:
@jon-nyc said in The Kyle Rittenhouse trial in Kenosha:
I’d say the odds are better than even that Rittenhouse will lose at least one civil suit.
There isn't a democrat in this country that wouldn't love to award some money to families of the evil eliminated by Mr. Rittenhouse.
The only challenge is jury selection.
Don’t misquote me.
DON’T let them eat cake.
- RFK Jr -
Education is extremely important.
-
@horace said in The Kyle Rittenhouse trial in Kenosha:
@jon-nyc said in The Kyle Rittenhouse trial in Kenosha:
misquote me.
Klaus, for all his flaws, is an excellent pianist. And I have to hand it to him about one thing. The man is a winner.
-jon-nyc
FIFY.
-
@larry said in The Kyle Rittenhouse trial in Kenosha:
There's no one who would have a legal standing to sue HIM civilly. The parents of those he shot would be the only ones with standing, but they lost that footing the moment their son made the decision to cause rittenhouse to need to defend himself.
Do parents of adults have standing to sue for wrongful death in Wisconsin?
