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?
wrote on 22 Nov 2021, 14:45 last edited by@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.
-
Tell that to OJ, my friend, who got a $58 million dollar judgement against him for the murders of two people he was acquitted for.
wrote on 22 Nov 2021, 14:47 last edited by@jon-nyc said in The Kyle Rittenhouse trial in Kenosha:
Tell that to OJ, my friend, who got a $58 million dollar judgement against him for the murders of two people he was acquitted for.
No similarities between those two cases whatsoever.
-
@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.
wrote on 22 Nov 2021, 14:48 last edited by@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.
-
@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.
wrote on 22 Nov 2021, 14:49 last edited by@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....
-
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.
wrote on 22 Nov 2021, 15:49 last edited by@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.
-
wrote on 22 Nov 2021, 15:58 last edited by Horace
I'd certainly not find him liable in a civil trial, assuming no new revelations. I wonder what our left-leaning members think.
-
I'd certainly not find him liable in a civil trial, assuming no new revelations. I wonder what our left-leaning members think.
wrote on 22 Nov 2021, 16:26 last edited by@horace said in The Kyle Rittenhouse trial in Kenosha:
I'd certainly not find him liable in a civil trial, assuming no new revelations. I wonder what our left-leaning members think.
I don't think you'd find him liable, either.
-
@horace said in The Kyle Rittenhouse trial in Kenosha:
I'd certainly not find him liable in a civil trial, assuming no new revelations. I wonder what our left-leaning members think.
I don't think you'd find him liable, either.
wrote on 22 Nov 2021, 16:35 last edited by@doctor-phibes said in The Kyle Rittenhouse trial in Kenosha:
@horace said in The Kyle Rittenhouse trial in Kenosha:
I'd certainly not find him liable in a civil trial, assuming no new revelations. I wonder what our left-leaning members think.
I don't think you'd find him liable, either.
I don't think anybody that can make that statement one way or another should sit on a jury... You can't know without sitting through the trial in the jury box and see the evidence and arguments as presented by the attorneys.
-
@doctor-phibes said in The Kyle Rittenhouse trial in Kenosha:
@horace said in The Kyle Rittenhouse trial in Kenosha:
I'd certainly not find him liable in a civil trial, assuming no new revelations. I wonder what our left-leaning members think.
I don't think you'd find him liable, either.
I don't think anybody that can make that statement one way or another should sit on a jury... You can't know without sitting through the trial in the jury box and see the evidence and arguments as presented by the attorneys.
wrote on 22 Nov 2021, 16:36 last edited by Doctor Phibes@lufins-dad said in The Kyle Rittenhouse trial in Kenosha:
@doctor-phibes said in The Kyle Rittenhouse trial in Kenosha:
@horace said in The Kyle Rittenhouse trial in Kenosha:
I'd certainly not find him liable in a civil trial, assuming no new revelations. I wonder what our left-leaning members think.
I don't think you'd find him liable, either.
I don't think anybody that can make that statement one way or another should sit on a jury... You can't know without sitting through the trial in the jury box and see the evidence and arguments as presented by the attorneys.
You don't think that somebody that agrees with what Horace said should be allowed to sit on a jury?
No, I agree with you. If you come to the trial saying 'not guilty', or 'guilty', then you're not doing your job as a juror.
-
wrote on 22 Nov 2021, 16:44 last edited by
I said "assuming no new revelations".
-
@lufins-dad said in The Kyle Rittenhouse trial in Kenosha:
@doctor-phibes said in The Kyle Rittenhouse trial in Kenosha:
@horace said in The Kyle Rittenhouse trial in Kenosha:
I'd certainly not find him liable in a civil trial, assuming no new revelations. I wonder what our left-leaning members think.
I don't think you'd find him liable, either.
I don't think anybody that can make that statement one way or another should sit on a jury... You can't know without sitting through the trial in the jury box and see the evidence and arguments as presented by the attorneys.
You don't think that somebody that agrees with what Horace said should be allowed to sit on a jury?
No, I agree with you. If you come to the trial saying 'not guilty', or 'guilty', then you're not doing your job as a juror.
wrote on 22 Nov 2021, 16:47 last edited by@doctor-phibes said in The Kyle Rittenhouse trial in Kenosha:
@lufins-dad said in The Kyle Rittenhouse trial in Kenosha:
@doctor-phibes said in The Kyle Rittenhouse trial in Kenosha:
@horace said in The Kyle Rittenhouse trial in Kenosha:
I'd certainly not find him liable in a civil trial, assuming no new revelations. I wonder what our left-leaning members think.
I don't think you'd find him liable, either.
I don't think anybody that can make that statement one way or another should sit on a jury... You can't know without sitting through the trial in the jury box and see the evidence and arguments as presented by the attorneys.
You don't think that somebody that agrees with what Horace said should be allowed to sit on a jury?
No, I agree with you. If you come to the trial saying 'not guilty', or 'guilty', then you're not doing your job as a juror.
I think it would be impossible to find a juror who didn't have an initial opinion one way or the other. The question is can you leave that opinion behind and focus on what is presented at trial.
-
wrote on 22 Nov 2021, 17:08 last edited by
Wow on so many effin levels...
First, here are the recent Twitter posts from the Chemistry and Biology Department of James Madison University. @Aqua-Letifer and @89th
And earlier they retweeted
My favorite part? "Two Beautiful Black Lives"
Uhmmm...
-
wrote on 22 Nov 2021, 17:16 last edited by
Not sure who Amber Ruffin is but she (and the JMU chemistry dept) have clearly absorbed the false narrative the media loves to push. And this is the problem, people start to believe it as fact. Honestly, I don't think this will ever get better unless there was some miraculous media overhaul (wont happen) or media pushback (wont happen) or media truth enforcement (wont happen). The best scenario is to just stop watching
the newscorporate media. -
@doctor-phibes said in The Kyle Rittenhouse trial in Kenosha:
@lufins-dad said in The Kyle Rittenhouse trial in Kenosha:
@doctor-phibes said in The Kyle Rittenhouse trial in Kenosha:
@horace said in The Kyle Rittenhouse trial in Kenosha:
I'd certainly not find him liable in a civil trial, assuming no new revelations. I wonder what our left-leaning members think.
I don't think you'd find him liable, either.
I don't think anybody that can make that statement one way or another should sit on a jury... You can't know without sitting through the trial in the jury box and see the evidence and arguments as presented by the attorneys.
You don't think that somebody that agrees with what Horace said should be allowed to sit on a jury?
No, I agree with you. If you come to the trial saying 'not guilty', or 'guilty', then you're not doing your job as a juror.
I think it would be impossible to find a juror who didn't have an initial opinion one way or the other. The question is can you leave that opinion behind and focus on what is presented at trial.
wrote on 22 Nov 2021, 17:16 last edited by@mik said in The Kyle Rittenhouse trial in Kenosha:
I think it would be impossible to find a juror who didn't have an initial opinion one way or the other. The question is can you leave that opinion behind and focus on what is presented at trial.
I'm honestly pretty hazy on the details of what happened. I haven't looked at any detailed reports, primarily because I find the whole media circus really disheartening and disgusting.
That being said, I'm pretty strong on letting juries decide, and sticking with it unless there's been some kind of miscarriage. I don't like the idea of civil trials undermining the results of criminal ones.
-
Wow on so many effin levels...
First, here are the recent Twitter posts from the Chemistry and Biology Department of James Madison University. @Aqua-Letifer and @89th
And earlier they retweeted
My favorite part? "Two Beautiful Black Lives"
Uhmmm...
wrote on 22 Nov 2021, 17:19 last edited by@lufins-dad said in The Kyle Rittenhouse trial in Kenosha:
First, here are the recent Twitter posts from the Chemistry and Biology Department of James Madison University. @Aqua-Letifer and @89th
BTW, you'd think a science department would care about empirical evidence and the pursuit of truth regardless of outcome.
-
@lufins-dad said in The Kyle Rittenhouse trial in Kenosha:
First, here are the recent Twitter posts from the Chemistry and Biology Department of James Madison University. @Aqua-Letifer and @89th
BTW, you'd think a science department would care about empirical evidence and the pursuit of truth regardless of outcome.
wrote on 22 Nov 2021, 17:28 last edited by Aqua Letifer@89th said in The Kyle Rittenhouse trial in Kenosha:
@lufins-dad said in The Kyle Rittenhouse trial in Kenosha:
First, here are the recent Twitter posts from the Chemistry and Biology Department of James Madison University. @Aqua-Letifer and @89th
BTW, you'd think a science department
Only if you don't understand what's going on. If this really is baffling to you, I'd recommend looking into the Evergreen College shitshow. It's got nothing to do with what departments teach. It's a mix of extremist activism, useful idiots, and coercion.
-
@lufins-dad said in The Kyle Rittenhouse trial in Kenosha:
First, here are the recent Twitter posts from the Chemistry and Biology Department of James Madison University. @Aqua-Letifer and @89th
BTW, you'd think a science department would care about empirical evidence and the pursuit of truth regardless of outcome.
wrote on 22 Nov 2021, 17:40 last edited by@89th said in The Kyle Rittenhouse trial in Kenosha:
@lufins-dad said in The Kyle Rittenhouse trial in Kenosha:
First, here are the recent Twitter posts from the Chemistry and Biology Department of James Madison University. @Aqua-Letifer and @89th
BTW, you'd think a science department would care about empirical evidence and the pursuit of truth regardless of outcome.
-
Wow on so many effin levels...
First, here are the recent Twitter posts from the Chemistry and Biology Department of James Madison University. @Aqua-Letifer and @89th
And earlier they retweeted
My favorite part? "Two Beautiful Black Lives"
Uhmmm...
wrote on 22 Nov 2021, 17:44 last edited by@lufins-dad said in The Kyle Rittenhouse trial in Kenosha:
Chemistry and Biology Department of James Madison University
idiots
-
wrote on 24 Nov 2021, 13:55 last edited by
https://www.cnn.com/2021/11/23/politics/trump-kyle-rittenhouse-mar-a-lago-visit/index.html
Trump says Rittenhouse visited him at Mar-a-Lago
(CNN)Former President Donald Trump said he was recently visited at his Palm Beach, Florida, resort by Kyle Rittenhouse, the teenager who was acquitted last week on all charges after fatally shooting two people and wounding a third during protests in Kenosha, Wisconsin, last summer.
"He called. He wanted to know if he could come over, say hello, because he was a fan," Trump said during an interview with Fox News' Sean Hannity that aired Tuesday night.
Trump said Rittenhouse, 18, had left Mar-a-Lago "a little while ago," and Hannity had earlier said that his interview with Trump took place on Monday. During the interview, Fox showed a picture of Rittenhouse posing with Trump.
"He came over with his mother. Really a nice young man. ... That was prosecutorial misconduct. He should have not have had to suffer through a trial for that. He was going to be dead," the former President said.
-
@improviso said in The Kyle Rittenhouse trial in Kenosha:
BTW, Wood is NOT his lawyer now. It looks like he might have been originally.
Ms. Rittenhouse claims on the podcast that two of #FightBack’s leaders—Wood and conservative firebrand John Pierce—latched onto her son’s case for their own personal reasons.
“They used Kyle to gain money, gain Twitter followers,” Ms. Rittenhouse told Law&Crime. “I felt now they didn’t care about Kyle.”
The mother has cut ties with #FightBack to start a new legal defense fund for her son under her control called FreeKyleUSA, and she claims that Wood and Pierce have ignored repeated requests to open up their books.
“He used my son’s image to make profit off of that. And I asked for an accounting of it. And I never got it. I was ignored,” Ms. Rittenhouse said of Wood in an interview with Law&Crime. “They used a 17-year-old kid’s image for their own political shit.”
“I asked Lin, where’s the money?” Ms. Rittenhouse recalled separately. “I wanted to see the books, like the accounting books.”
In an email, Wood denied receiving any request for an audit and said FightBack would be “perfectly willing to undergo any audit required by law.”
wrote on 24 Nov 2021, 22:09 last edited by@george-k said in The Kyle Rittenhouse trial in Kenosha:
@improviso said in The Kyle Rittenhouse trial in Kenosha:
BTW, Wood is NOT his lawyer now. It looks like he might have been originally.
Ms. Rittenhouse claims on the podcast that two of #FightBack’s leaders—Wood and conservative firebrand John Pierce—latched onto her son’s case for their own personal reasons.
“They used Kyle to gain money, gain Twitter followers,” Ms. Rittenhouse told Law&Crime. “I felt now they didn’t care about Kyle.”
The mother has cut ties with #FightBack to start a new legal defense fund for her son under her control called FreeKyleUSA, and she claims that Wood and Pierce have ignored repeated requests to open up their books.
“He used my son’s image to make profit off of that. And I asked for an accounting of it. And I never got it. I was ignored,” Ms. Rittenhouse said of Wood in an interview with Law&Crime. “They used a 17-year-old kid’s image for their own political shit.”
“I asked Lin, where’s the money?” Ms. Rittenhouse recalled separately. “I wanted to see the books, like the accounting books.”
In an email, Wood denied receiving any request for an audit and said FightBack would be “perfectly willing to undergo any audit required by law.”