The Kyle Rittenhouse trial in Kenosha
-
@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.
-
Don't particularly like all the civil crap after a criminal trial.
At the very least, should be loser pays.
-
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?
-
@ivorythumper said in The Kyle Rittenhouse trial in Kenosha:
Do parents of adults have standing to sue for wrongful death in Wisconsin?
https://www.hupy.com/faqs/wisconsin-personal-injury-standing-to-sue.cfm
- Children can recover for personal injuries. However, they cannot bring personal injury lawsuits. Typically, one or both of the parents will contact a personal injury lawyer on the child’s behalf. A guardian ad litem may be appointed to represent the child’s interests. This may be the attorney hired by the family. If a settlement is reached or a court verdict is determined, then the money will be put into an interest-bearing account until the child reaches the age of 18 or until the conditions met by the court are satisfied.
- Adults with legal guardians can recover for personal injuries. The legal guardian may contact a personal injury attorney on behalf of the person who was hurt. Any recovery will be used for the benefit of the person who was injured.
- Estates of people who have died in wrongful death accident can recover for personal injuries. The personal representative of the estate has the right to bring the lawsuit for the benefit of the person’s estate.
-
@ivorythumper said in The Kyle Rittenhouse trial in Kenosha:
@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?
No idea. But we have been talking about the Rittenhouse case, and "wrongful death" isn't involved.
-
-
@larry the estate can sue.
But, as Jon pointed out, and several articles I've seen said that the bar is lower, much lower, in a civil wrongful death suit.
If they can convince, by a preponderance of evidence (not beyond reasonable doubt) that he was negligent (traveling to Kenosha, carrying weapon) and that resulted in the deaths of these people, he probably has some legal exposure.
Not saying it's right, just that that's the way it is.
"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:
@larry the estate can sue.
But, as Jon pointed out, and several articles I've seen said that the bar is lower, much lower, in a civil wrongful death suit.
If they can convince, by a preponderance of evidence (not beyond reasonable doubt) that he was negligent (traveling to Kenosha, carrying weapon) and that resulted in the deaths of these people, he probably has some legal exposure.
Not saying it's right, just that that's the way it is.
Good luck with that....
-
@horace said in The Kyle Rittenhouse trial in Kenosha:
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.
And that will ultimately come down to do people have a right to defend their property during destructive civil unrest. In my world, of course they do. When some rioters are carrying firearms is it unreasonable for Rittenhouse to do so? Don't think so.
I think you can also make an argument that the rioters who came after him with firearms and other weapons intentionally put themselves there too. I don't think a trial will hinge on simple principles of 'if this, then that'. The rioters behavior will factor into it.
-
Education is extremely important.
