Airliners.net

StarAC17 wrote:

flyingclrs727 wrote:

casinterest wrote:

The Civil lawsuits against Kenosha and Rittenhouse will be interesting to see.

As for this ruling, it comes down to bad police work, and over charging by the prosecutor.

The wrongful death suits will probably be forthcoming.

What civil lawsuits? Wrongful death? The defendant just successfully used a self-defense plea. Claiming self-defense puts the burden of proof on the defense.

Civil law has a much lower burden of proof than criminal law and I can see those lawsuits being somewhat successful. Especially as its likely that Rittenhouse is in a position to profit from this case in terms of media appearances and a potential book deal.

OJ Simpson was deemed liable in subsequent civil trials after his acquittal in 1995.

seb146 wrote:

Veigar wrote:

LittleFokker wrote:

Good news, everyone - vigilante murder is legal in Wisconsin now! Should I drive up from Illinois and inflict a little self defense of on own?

What compels people like you to make ridiculous projections like this? I sincerely mean this in the nicest way possible, and I'm curious.

This verdict. Rittenhouse had no reason to carry an AR-15 into a protest then claim he felt threatened and open fire. None at all. No one but no one was surrounding his house, no one but no one was ransacking his house. He has no reason to walk into a crowd of protesters, claim he felt threatened, and kill. But, the judge and jury believe that is just fine.

KWexpress wrote:

seb146 wrote:

Veigar wrote:

What compels people like you to make ridiculous projections like this? I sincerely mean this in the nicest way possible, and I'm curious.

This verdict. Rittenhouse had no reason to carry an AR-15 into a protest then claim he felt threatened and open fire. None at all. No one but no one was surrounding his house, no one but no one was ransacking his house. He has no reason to walk into a crowd of protesters, claim he felt threatened, and kill. But, the judge and jury believe that is just fine.

Someone didn't watch the trial and it shows! The jury and judge believe it's just fine, because they took the time to hear testimony from the people actually involved and at the riot, not some CNN pundit.

art wrote:

I think that it is not uncommon for people to judge the outcome of cases based on what they would like the law to be rather than by what it is.

Elkadad313 wrote:

Aaron747 wrote:

Elkadad313 wrote:

Or, to the genesis of it all on August 23, 2020, if a man wanted on a warrant for his arrest from the previous month, based on charges of third-degree sexual assault, trespassing, and disorderly conduct, and while carrying a knife refused to comply with a lawful police order and instead went to this car, opened the door and then quickly turned toward the police officer and got shot, maybe because it’s blindingly obvious that if Jacob Blake had simply complied two people would still be alive.

Multiple things can be true at the same time. Yes, Blake was unwise and met an early demise as a result of his impulsive actions. Yes, that death poured fuel on an already simmering cultural fire. Yes, that sent more people into the streets, whether they had all the facts or not. None of it makes Rittenhouse worthy of the lionization he is receiving from right wing pundits and the worst morons in Congress on the right.

Without rain, there can be no flood.

Aaron747 wrote:

art wrote:

I think that it is not uncommon for people to judge the outcome of cases based on what they would like the law to be rather than by what it is.

This is true, but in the US we have the added dimension of structural problems that have provided unequal outcomes in courts depending on wealth and ethnic status. So there are logical concerns about outcome of cases based not on how the law should be but how and when it is applied (and for whom).

Veigar wrote:

Aaron747 wrote:

art wrote:

I think that it is not uncommon for people to judge the outcome of cases based on what they would like the law to be rather than by what it is.

This is true, but in the US we have the added dimension of structural problems that have provided unequal outcomes in courts depending on wealth and ethnic status. So there are logical concerns about outcome of cases based not on how the law should be but how and when it is applied (and for whom).

Perhaps, but this is not one of those cases.

flyingclrs727 wrote:

StarAC17 wrote:

flyingclrs727 wrote:

What civil lawsuits? Wrongful death? The defendant just successfully used a self-defense plea. Claiming self-defense puts the burden of proof on the defense.

Civil law has a much lower burden of proof than criminal law and I can see those lawsuits being somewhat successful. Especially as its likely that Rittenhouse is in a position to profit from this case in terms of media appearances and a potential book deal.

OJ Simpson was deemed liable in subsequent civil trials after his acquittal in 1995.

OJ Simpson was civilly sued for wrongful death. Rittenhouse was found not guilty of murder, and he used a self-defense legal defense. Self defense is not wrongful death.

casinterest wrote:

flyingclrs727 wrote:

StarAC17 wrote:

Civil law has a much lower burden of proof than criminal law and I can see those lawsuits being somewhat successful. Especially as its likely that Rittenhouse is in a position to profit from this case in terms of media appearances and a potential book deal.

OJ Simpson was deemed liable in subsequent civil trials after his acquittal in 1995.

OJ Simpson was civilly sued for wrongful death. Rittenhouse was found not guilty of murder, and he used a self-defense legal defense. Self defense is not wrongful death.

The Civil cases have a much lower burden of proof. Rittenhouse was found not guilty of 1st and 2nd degree murder. Manslaughter was not on that list. The Civil cases also have a much lower burden of proof.
Civil cases can also admit into evidence a lot of the items that the judge excluded from this trial.

flyingclrs727 wrote:

casinterest wrote:

flyingclrs727 wrote:

OJ Simpson was civilly sued for wrongful death. Rittenhouse was found not guilty of murder, and he used a self-defense legal defense. Self defense is not wrongful death.

The Civil cases have a much lower burden of proof. Rittenhouse was found not guilty of 1st and 2nd degree murder. Manslaughter was not on that list. The Civil cases also have a much lower burden of proof.
Civil cases can also admit into evidence a lot of the items that the judge excluded from this trial.

He can't be tried in a criminal court for manslaughter. A wrongful death case in a civil suit won't go anywhere. The suit would have to be filed in Kenosha, WI. I seriously doubt a jury pool there would be sympathetic.

casinterest wrote:

flyingclrs727 wrote:

casinterest wrote:

The Civil cases have a much lower burden of proof. Rittenhouse was found not guilty of 1st and 2nd degree murder. Manslaughter was not on that list. The Civil cases also have a much lower burden of proof.
Civil cases can also admit into evidence a lot of the items that the judge excluded from this trial.

He can't be tried in a criminal court for manslaughter. A wrongful death case in a civil suit won't go anywhere. The suit would have to be filed in Kenosha, WI. I seriously doubt a jury pool there would be sympathetic.

He can be sued in Civil Court for wrongfui death. The burden of proof is lower in the civil court. They only need to show that Rittenhouse caused the deaths, it will be up to family and lawyers to take it on, but there is a good case to be made that no one would have been shot or killed if
A. Rittenhouse's roommate hadn't bought the gun for him
B. Rittenhouse hadn't gone to the site
C. Rittenhouse hadn't engaged in behavior that stirred the crowd.

All of this can lead to civil charges.

Airstud wrote:

CaptHadley wrote:

DIRECTFLT wrote:

You can look at the slant and the tone of this ABC News article on the Rittenhouse acquittal, to see where the bulk of the mainstream media will be going tonight. They are playing to their base.

https://abcnews.go.com/US/jury-reaches- ... d=81108654

Slant? Please, the article touches both sides and gives each "party" their take on the events. You're trying to fit this article into what YOU are feeling, it fits really bad.

It might "touch" on both sides but it then devotes about eight times as much space to the "Miscarriage of justice! Scrap the system!" side as it does to the pro-acquittal side.

U.S. news consumers are used to this from the major broadcast networks, Washington Post, New York Times, NPR...

Airstud wrote:

Airstud wrote:

CaptHadley wrote:

Slant? Please, the article touches both sides and gives each "party" their take on the events. You're trying to fit this article into what YOU are feeling, it fits really bad.

It might "touch" on both sides but it then devotes about eight times as much space to the "Miscarriage of justice! Scrap the system!" side as it does to the pro-acquittal side.

U.S. news consumers are used to this from the major broadcast networks, Washington Post, New York Times, NPR...

And now CBS News as well.

I don't think that article contributes anything to the public's knowledge of the case and I think CBS published it solely because they wish to advance Justin Blake's viewpoint.

Aaron747 wrote:

And here’s why people feel the way they do: white dude in Kenosha was trafficking girls, arrested for sex abuse and released w/o bail, then one of the girls killed him a couple hours after he forced himself on her. She went up for first degree murder, not self defense.

https://www.washingtonpost.com/graphics ... ng-murder/

FlapOperator wrote:

Aaron747 wrote:

And here’s why people feel the way they do: white dude in Kenosha was trafficking girls, arrested for sex abuse and released w/o bail, then one of the girls killed him a couple hours after he forced himself on her. She went up for first degree murder, not self defense.

https://www.washingtonpost.com/graphics ... ng-murder/

Its a heart breaking case, and the world is a better place for Volar being gone, in my opinion. But there are specific elements to claim "self defense" in nearly every state and the odious nature of the victim isn't one of them. What usually is the case for a self defense claim is immediacy of threat, disproportionate force, and a "reasonable man" standard, among obviously others.

flyingturtle wrote:

This was miscarriage of justice. One of the reasons to avoid the 3rd world country the United States are.

So, this guy is a civilian. He has no close relationship to anybody living in Kenosha. He knows it's a danger zone. He knows that people there are not playing nice, He still goes there. In any sane legal system, you forfeit a large part of your "self defense" standing if you go to place where violence is expected, and you are not trying to rescue or protect a close relative of yours.

To my knowledge, he was not trained as a medic - not even on my level (Swiss IVR 2). Grosskreutz, a person Rittenhouse shot, was a trained medic.

In a just world, the judge would have adjourned the court until all the victims turn up to give their testimony.

Given that they were willing to sacrifice their lives and wanted to yank an AR-15 like weapon from him, it's possible that they had justified reasons to see Rittenhouse as an active shooter.

flyingclrs727 wrote:

flyingturtle wrote:

This was miscarriage of justice. One of the reasons to avoid the 3rd world country the United States are.

So, this guy is a civilian. He has no close relationship to anybody living in Kenosha. He knows it's a danger zone. He knows that people there are not playing nice, He still goes there. In any sane legal system, you forfeit a large part of your "self defense" standing if you go to place where violence is expected, and you are not trying to rescue or protect a close relative of yours.

To my knowledge, he was not trained as a medic - not even on my level (Swiss IVR 2). Grosskreutz, a person Rittenhouse shot, was a trained medic.

In a just world, the judge would have adjourned the court until all the victims turn up to give their testimony.

Given that they were willing to sacrifice their lives and wanted to yank an AR-15 like weapon from him, it's possible that they had justified reasons to see Rittenhouse as an active shooter.

His father and other relatives live in Kenosha. His mother's home in Illinois was closer than to Kenosha than where 2 of the people he shot lived. What were outside rabble rousers doing there rioting and setting buildings on fire? Why didn't the governor of Wisconsin send in national guard units to stop the rioting? Rioting is not speech, and it isn't protected by the Constitution.

Aaron747 wrote:

flyingclrs727 wrote:

flyingturtle wrote:

This was miscarriage of justice. One of the reasons to avoid the 3rd world country the United States are.

So, this guy is a civilian. He has no close relationship to anybody living in Kenosha. He knows it's a danger zone. He knows that people there are not playing nice, He still goes there. In any sane legal system, you forfeit a large part of your "self defense" standing if you go to place where violence is expected, and you are not trying to rescue or protect a close relative of yours.

To my knowledge, he was not trained as a medic - not even on my level (Swiss IVR 2). Grosskreutz, a person Rittenhouse shot, was a trained medic.

In a just world, the judge would have adjourned the court until all the victims turn up to give their testimony.

Given that they were willing to sacrifice their lives and wanted to yank an AR-15 like weapon from him, it's possible that they had justified reasons to see Rittenhouse as an active shooter.

His father and other relatives live in Kenosha. His mother's home in Illinois was closer than to Kenosha than where 2 of the people he shot lived. What were outside rabble rousers doing there rioting and setting buildings on fire? Why didn't the governor of Wisconsin send in national guard units to stop the rioting? Rioting is not speech, and it isn't protected by the Constitution.

Sending in NG is a last resort when order cannot be restored after a long period of sustained unrest - see LA 1992. Sending NG into a relatively small city would be counterproductive and deepen mistrust of government, that's why. Yes, rioting is not protected by the Constitution - that's why more than 200 were arrested and/or charged in Kenosha.

flyingclrs727 wrote:

Aaron747 wrote:

flyingclrs727 wrote:

His father and other relatives live in Kenosha. His mother's home in Illinois was closer than to Kenosha than where 2 of the people he shot lived. What were outside rabble rousers doing there rioting and setting buildings on fire? Why didn't the governor of Wisconsin send in national guard units to stop the rioting? Rioting is not speech, and it isn't protected by the Constitution.

Sending in NG is a last resort when order cannot be restored after a long period of sustained unrest - see LA 1992. Sending NG into a relatively small city would be counterproductive and deepen mistrust of government, that's why. Yes, rioting is not protected by the Constitution - that's why more than 200 were arrested and/or charged in Kenosha.

Wrong! The same governor called up hundreds of members of the national guard BEFORE the verdict of the Rittenhouse trial. Most weren't even deployed. The mere fact that they were available on short notice deters violence before it starts. I live in a hurricane prone part of the gulf coast. National guard units get called up and deployed when there are natural disasters to help out and deter looting before it ever starts. In the LA riots of 1992, it wasn't just the national guard that got called up. Governor Pete Wilson requested military help, and President Bush sent in some Marines. This is allowed under the Posse Comitatus Act of 1878. US military units can only be used for domestic law enforcement when requested by the governor of a state.

Aaron747 wrote:

flyingclrs727 wrote:

Aaron747 wrote:

Sending in NG is a last resort when order cannot be restored after a long period of sustained unrest - see LA 1992. Sending NG into a relatively small city would be counterproductive and deepen mistrust of government, that's why. Yes, rioting is not protected by the Constitution - that's why more than 200 were arrested and/or charged in Kenosha.

Wrong! The same governor called up hundreds of members of the national guard BEFORE the verdict of the Rittenhouse trial. Most weren't even deployed. The mere fact that they were available on short notice deters violence before it starts. I live in a hurricane prone part of the gulf coast. National guard units get called up and deployed when there are natural disasters to help out and deter looting before it ever starts. In the LA riots of 1992, it wasn't just the national guard that got called up. Governor Pete Wilson requested military help, and President Bush sent in some Marines. This is allowed under the Posse Comitatus Act of 1878. US military units can only be used for domestic law enforcement when requested by the governor of a state.

I said sending in...not making preparations. You're probably not from California, so I'll forgive the historical error, but Governor Wilson did not get major NG units into the city until the 2nd day of the '92 riots, and the Insurrection Act wasn't invoked federally until Day 3.

Aaron747 wrote:

flyingclrs727 wrote:

Aaron747 wrote:

Sending in NG is a last resort when order cannot be restored after a long period of sustained unrest - see LA 1992. Sending NG into a relatively small city would be counterproductive and deepen mistrust of government, that's why. Yes, rioting is not protected by the Constitution - that's why more than 200 were arrested and/or charged in Kenosha.

Wrong! The same governor called up hundreds of members of the national guard BEFORE the verdict of the Rittenhouse trial. Most weren't even deployed. The mere fact that they were available on short notice deters violence before it starts. I live in a hurricane prone part of the gulf coast. National guard units get called up and deployed when there are natural disasters to help out and deter looting before it ever starts. In the LA riots of 1992, it wasn't just the national guard that got called up. Governor Pete Wilson requested military help, and President Bush sent in some Marines. This is allowed under the Posse Comitatus Act of 1878. US military units can only be used for domestic law enforcement when requested by the governor of a state.

I said sending in...not making preparations. You're probably not from California, so I'll forgive the historical error, but Governor Wilson did not get major NG units into the city until the 2nd day of the '92 riots, and the Insurrection Act wasn't invoked federally until Day 3.

Aaron747 wrote:

flyingclrs727 wrote:

Aaron747 wrote:

Sending in NG is a last resort when order cannot be restored after a long period of sustained unrest - see LA 1992. Sending NG into a relatively small city would be counterproductive and deepen mistrust of government, that's why. Yes, rioting is not protected by the Constitution - that's why more than 200 were arrested and/or charged in Kenosha.

Wrong! The same governor called up hundreds of members of the national guard BEFORE the verdict of the Rittenhouse trial. Most weren't even deployed. The mere fact that they were available on short notice deters violence before it starts. I live in a hurricane prone part of the gulf coast. National guard units get called up and deployed when there are natural disasters to help out and deter looting before it ever starts. In the LA riots of 1992, it wasn't just the national guard that got called up. Governor Pete Wilson requested military help, and President Bush sent in some Marines. This is allowed under the Posse Comitatus Act of 1878. US military units can only be used for domestic law enforcement when requested by the governor of a state.

I said sending in...not making preparations. You're probably not from California, so I'll forgive the historical error, but Governor Wilson did not get major NG units into the city until the 2nd day of the '92 riots, and the Insurrection Act wasn't invoked federally until Day 3.

flyingclrs727 wrote:

casinterest wrote:

flyingclrs727 wrote:

He can't be tried in a criminal court for manslaughter. A wrongful death case in a civil suit won't go anywhere. The suit would have to be filed in Kenosha, WI. I seriously doubt a jury pool there would be sympathetic.

He can be sued in Civil Court for wrongfui death. The burden of proof is lower in the civil court. They only need to show that Rittenhouse caused the deaths, it will be up to family and lawyers to take it on, but there is a good case to be made that no one would have been shot or killed if
A. Rittenhouse's roommate hadn't bought the gun for him
B. Rittenhouse hadn't gone to the site
C. Rittenhouse hadn't engaged in behavior that stirred the crowd.

All of this can lead to civil charges.

Rittenhouse had a right to be there with a gun. Shooting someone in self-defense is not wrongful death. Yes he caused their deaths, but he had a right to self defense. The defense in a civil suit would be able to bring up all sorts of information that was suppressed in the criminal trial about the people shot. I don't think a jury pool in Kenosha, WI would be sympathetic to a convicted child rapist who apparently was anxious for a fight. The others also had previous felony convictions.

seb146 wrote:

flyingclrs727 wrote:

casinterest wrote:

He can be sued in Civil Court for wrongfui death. The burden of proof is lower in the civil court. They only need to show that Rittenhouse caused the deaths, it will be up to family and lawyers to take it on, but there is a good case to be made that no one would have been shot or killed if
A. Rittenhouse's roommate hadn't bought the gun for him
B. Rittenhouse hadn't gone to the site
C. Rittenhouse hadn't engaged in behavior that stirred the crowd.

All of this can lead to civil charges.

Rittenhouse had a right to be there with a gun. Shooting someone in self-defense is not wrongful death. Yes he caused their deaths, but he had a right to self defense. The defense in a civil suit would be able to bring up all sorts of information that was suppressed in the criminal trial about the people shot. I don't think a jury pool in Kenosha, WI would be sympathetic to a convicted child rapist who apparently was anxious for a fight. The others also had previous felony convictions.

He inserted himself into a situation 20 miles away. He and his home were not under attack. He made it that way. He carried a gun to a protest that was nowhere near his house and now claims he felt threatened. Stop blaming a man who had been tried and convicted and served his time. Rittenhouse did not know in any way that a convicted child rapist was there. This was not Rittenhouse out to settle a score with a child rapist. Stop bringing up this red herring. It has nothing to do with anything except a distraction for the right.

Rittenhouse inserted himself with a gun into a situation he had not business being in. Why didn't the two dead people get to feel threatened? They probably did when they saw a guy walking toward the protest with an AR-15 but their feelings are meaningless, somehow.

seb146 wrote:

He inserted himself into a situation 20 miles away. He and his home were not under attack. He made it that way. He carried a gun to a protest that was nowhere near his house and now claims he felt threatened. (...)

Aaron747 wrote:

flyingclrs727 wrote:

Aaron747 wrote:

Sending in NG is a last resort when order cannot be restored after a long period of sustained unrest - see LA 1992. Sending NG into a relatively small city would be counterproductive and deepen mistrust of government, that's why. Yes, rioting is not protected by the Constitution - that's why more than 200 were arrested and/or charged in Kenosha.

Wrong! The same governor called up hundreds of members of the national guard BEFORE the verdict of the Rittenhouse trial. Most weren't even deployed. The mere fact that they were available on short notice deters violence before it starts. I live in a hurricane prone part of the gulf coast. National guard units get called up and deployed when there are natural disasters to help out and deter looting before it ever starts. In the LA riots of 1992, it wasn't just the national guard that got called up. Governor Pete Wilson requested military help, and President Bush sent in some Marines. This is allowed under the Posse Comitatus Act of 1878. US military units can only be used for domestic law enforcement when requested by the governor of a state.

I said sending in...not making preparations. You're probably not from California, so I'll forgive the historical error, but Governor Wilson did not get major NG units into the city until the 2nd day of the '92 riots, and the Insurrection Act wasn't invoked federally until Day 3.

seb146 wrote:

flyingclrs727 wrote:

casinterest wrote:

He can be sued in Civil Court for wrongfui death. The burden of proof is lower in the civil court. They only need to show that Rittenhouse caused the deaths, it will be up to family and lawyers to take it on, but there is a good case to be made that no one would have been shot or killed if
A. Rittenhouse's roommate hadn't bought the gun for him
B. Rittenhouse hadn't gone to the site
C. Rittenhouse hadn't engaged in behavior that stirred the crowd.

All of this can lead to civil charges.

ContinentalEWR wrote:

seb146 wrote:

flyingclrs727 wrote:

flyingclrs727 wrote:

Aaron747 wrote:

flyingclrs727 wrote:

Wrong! The same governor called up hundreds of members of the national guard BEFORE the verdict of the Rittenhouse trial. Most weren't even deployed. The mere fact that they were available on short notice deters violence before it starts. I live in a hurricane prone part of the gulf coast. National guard units get called up and deployed when there are natural disasters to help out and deter looting before it ever starts. In the LA riots of 1992, it wasn't just the national guard that got called up. Governor Pete Wilson requested military help, and President Bush sent in some Marines. This is allowed under the Posse Comitatus Act of 1878. US military units can only be used for domestic law enforcement when requested by the governor of a state.

I said sending in...not making preparations. You're probably not from California, so I'll forgive the historical error, but Governor Wilson did not get major NG units into the city until the 2nd day of the '92 riots, and the Insurrection Act wasn't invoked federally until Day 3.

Well it was 1992. Nobody was expecting the riots that happened. In 2020 the governor of Wisconsin was a fool to not announce mobilization of the national guard after shooting.

I was referring to calling up national guard units in advance of natural disasters along the gulf coast. When I was a child we had a devastating category 3 hurricane that caused lots of damage in my city. Before sunset the radio station still on the air was reporting that the governor had declared an emergency and announced a curfew starting at sunset til sunrise. The national guard units would be arriving to enforce martial law.

johns624 wrote:

My wife lived in the South Bay area and worked in Lincoln Heights at the time. She was scared to death.

seb146 wrote:

Rittenhouse had a right to be there with a gun. Shooting someone in self-defense is not wrongful death. Yes he caused their deaths, but he had a right to self defense. The defense in a civil suit would be able to bring up all sorts of information that was suppressed in the criminal trial about the people shot. I don't think a jury pool in Kenosha, WI would be sympathetic to a convicted child rapist who apparently was anxious for a fight. The others also had previous felony convictions.

He inserted himself into a situation 20 miles away. He and his home were not under attack. He made it that way. He carried a gun to a protest that was nowhere near his house and now claims he felt threatened. Stop blaming a man who had been tried and convicted and served his time. Rittenhouse did not know in any way that a convicted child rapist was there. This was not Rittenhouse out to settle a score with a child rapist. Stop bringing up this red herring. It has nothing to do with anything except a distraction for the right.

seb146 wrote:

Why didn't the two dead people get to feel threatened? They probably did when they saw a guy walking toward the protest with an AR-15 but their feelings are meaningless, somehow.

flyingclrs727 wrote:

casinterest wrote:

flyingclrs727 wrote:

He can't be tried in a criminal court for manslaughter. A wrongful death case in a civil suit won't go anywhere. The suit would have to be filed in Kenosha, WI. I seriously doubt a jury pool there would be sympathetic.

He can be sued in Civil Court for wrongfui death. The burden of proof is lower in the civil court. They only need to show that Rittenhouse caused the deaths, it will be up to family and lawyers to take it on, but there is a good case to be made that no one would have been shot or killed if
A. Rittenhouse's roommate hadn't bought the gun for him
B. Rittenhouse hadn't gone to the site
C. Rittenhouse hadn't engaged in behavior that stirred the crowd.

All of this can lead to civil charges.

Rittenhouse had a right to be there with a gun. Shooting someone in self-defense is not wrongful death. Yes he caused their deaths, but he had a right to self defense. The defense in a civil suit would be able to bring up all sorts of information that was suppressed in the criminal trial about the people shot. I don't think a jury pool in Kenosha, WI would be sympathetic to a convicted child rapist who apparently was anxious for a fight. The others also had previous felony convictions.

casinterest wrote:

flyingclrs727 wrote:

casinterest wrote:

He can be sued in Civil Court for wrongfui death. The burden of proof is lower in the civil court. They only need to show that Rittenhouse caused the deaths, it will be up to family and lawyers to take it on, but there is a good case to be made that no one would have been shot or killed if
A. Rittenhouse's roommate hadn't bought the gun for him
B. Rittenhouse hadn't gone to the site
C. Rittenhouse hadn't engaged in behavior that stirred the crowd.

All of this can lead to civil charges.

Rittenhouse had a right to be there with a gun. Shooting someone in self-defense is not wrongful death. Yes he caused their deaths, but he had a right to self defense. The defense in a civil suit would be able to bring up all sorts of information that was suppressed in the criminal trial about the people shot. I don't think a jury pool in Kenosha, WI would be sympathetic to a convicted child rapist who apparently was anxious for a fight. The others also had previous felony convictions.

Really? the judge wouldn't let the defense bring up what was in Rittenhouse's past, you can't bring up what was in the victim's past. The only difference is that Rittenhouse chose to go with a gun. When everyone starts going with guns, you will get a lot of deaths. The one thing this incident shows, is that immature people can't be trusted with a gun.

PixelPilot wrote:

casinterest wrote:

flyingclrs727 wrote:

Rittenhouse had a right to be there with a gun. Shooting someone in self-defense is not wrongful death. Yes he caused their deaths, but he had a right to self defense. The defense in a civil suit would be able to bring up all sorts of information that was suppressed in the criminal trial about the people shot. I don't think a jury pool in Kenosha, WI would be sympathetic to a convicted child rapist who apparently was anxious for a fight. The others also had previous felony convictions.

Really? the judge wouldn't let the defense bring up what was in Rittenhouse's past, you can't bring up what was in the victim's past. The only difference is that Rittenhouse chose to go with a gun. When everyone starts going with guns, you will get a lot of deaths. The one thing this incident shows, is that immature people can't be trusted with a gun.

One of his attackers also chose to bring a gun and decided to point it at Kyle.
You are very right that immature people shouldn’t point guns at law abiding citizens.

Also I urge anybody that is even remotely interested in this case to watch this documentary.
https://youtu.be/KlylH0gy5HQ

casinterest wrote:

PixelPilot wrote:

casinterest wrote:

Really? the judge wouldn't let the defense bring up what was in Rittenhouse's past, you can't bring up what was in the victim's past. The only difference is that Rittenhouse chose to go with a gun. When everyone starts going with guns, you will get a lot of deaths. The one thing this incident shows, is that immature people can't be trusted with a gun.

One of his attackers also chose to bring a gun and decided to point it at Kyle.
You are very right that immature people shouldn’t point guns at law abiding citizens.

Also I urge anybody that is even remotely interested in this case to watch this documentary.
https://youtu.be/KlylH0gy5HQ

And that was after Kyle had killed one person. The only person that lived , had a gun.

seb146 wrote:

flyingclrs727 wrote:

casinterest wrote:

He can be sued in Civil Court for wrongfui death. The burden of proof is lower in the civil court. They only need to show that Rittenhouse caused the deaths, it will be up to family and lawyers to take it on, but there is a good case to be made that no one would have been shot or killed if
A. Rittenhouse's roommate hadn't bought the gun for him
B. Rittenhouse hadn't gone to the site
C. Rittenhouse hadn't engaged in behavior that stirred the crowd.

All of this can lead to civil charges.

Rittenhouse had a right to be there with a gun. Shooting someone in self-defense is not wrongful death. Yes he caused their deaths, but he had a right to self defense. The defense in a civil suit would be able to bring up all sorts of information that was suppressed in the criminal trial about the people shot. I don't think a jury pool in Kenosha, WI would be sympathetic to a convicted child rapist who apparently was anxious for a fight. The others also had previous felony convictions.

He inserted himself into a situation 20 miles away. He and his home were not under attack. He made it that way. He carried a gun to a protest that was nowhere near his house and now claims he felt threatened. Stop blaming a man who had been tried and convicted and served his time. Rittenhouse did not know in any way that a convicted child rapist was there. This was not Rittenhouse out to settle a score with a child rapist. Stop bringing up this red herring. It has nothing to do with anything except a distraction for the right.

Rittenhouse inserted himself with a gun into a situation he had not business being in. Why didn't the two dead people get to feel threatened? They probably did when they saw a guy walking toward the protest with an AR-15 but their feelings are meaningless, somehow.

stratosphere wrote:

Lets get real here. The 3 who were shot were there to start trouble there are no two ways about that.

seb146 wrote:

stratosphere wrote:

Lets get real here. The 3 who were shot were there to start trouble there are no two ways about that.

You sure about that? Another unarmed Black man was killed by police but these three were only there to vandalize? Are you absolutely sure about that?

But, again, I have to ask why Rittenhouse felt so threatened sitting at his house 20 miles away that he packed up an AR-15, drove to a used car lot with the AR-15, and opened fire? What were the protesters doing to Rittenhouse at his home? Rittenhouse was not threatened until he was marching toward the crowd with a loaded weapon.

I also notice no one is bringing up the "responsible gun owner" angle or the "every life is precious" angle either.

seb146 wrote:

You sure about that? Another unarmed Black man was killed by police but these three were only there to vandalize? Are you absolutely sure about that?.

sccutler wrote:

It is often said that a lie, repeated often enough, comes to be perceived as the truth.

There is a great deal of repetition going on here, and indeed, in the press.

Think, if you can, of the pressure to convict felt by the jury; they knew - had to know - that convicting was the easy path. Nonetheless, having seen the evidence, they found that the Defendant acted in self-defense. For those who do not know, the legal standard for proving self-defense is not all that easy.

There have been some hugely incendiary statements made here about the Defendant, both statements of putative fact which are demonstrably false, and assertions of motive and character which are simply not in evidence. What is it that makes some of you so desperate to have a conviction, when the jury who sat in judgment and heard the evidence returned a matched-set of not-guilty determinations?

If it were you under indictment, would you waive your defenses for some perceived "common good"?

There is no "good" at all in wrongful convictions.

casinterest wrote:

flyingclrs727 wrote:

casinterest wrote:

The Civil cases have a much lower burden of proof. Rittenhouse was found not guilty of 1st and 2nd degree murder. Manslaughter was not on that list. The Civil cases also have a much lower burden of proof.
Civil cases can also admit into evidence a lot of the items that the judge excluded from this trial.

He can't be tried in a criminal court for manslaughter. A wrongful death case in a civil suit won't go anywhere. The suit would have to be filed in Kenosha, WI. I seriously doubt a jury pool there would be sympathetic.

He can be sued in Civil Court for wrongfui death. The burden of proof is lower in the civil court. They only need to show that Rittenhouse caused the deaths, it will be up to family and lawyers to take it on, but there is a good case to be made that no one would have been shot or killed if
A. Rittenhouse's roommate hadn't bought the gun for him
B. Rittenhouse hadn't gone to the site
C. Rittenhouse hadn't engaged in behavior that stirred the crowd.

All of this can lead to civil charges.

windy95 wrote:

casinterest wrote:

flyingclrs727 wrote:

He can't be tried in a criminal court for manslaughter. A wrongful death case in a civil suit won't go anywhere. The suit would have to be filed in Kenosha, WI. I seriously doubt a jury pool there would be sympathetic.

He can be sued in Civil Court for wrongfui death. The burden of proof is lower in the civil court. They only need to show that Rittenhouse caused the deaths, it will be up to family and lawyers to take it on, but there is a good case to be made that no one would have been shot or killed if
A. Rittenhouse's roommate hadn't bought the gun for him
B. Rittenhouse hadn't gone to the site
C. Rittenhouse hadn't engaged in behavior that stirred the crowd.

All of this can lead to civil charges.

They would not of been shot and killed if they did not show up to a riot.
They would not of been shot if they did not attack a person in possession of a firearm.....Facts

windy95 wrote:

casinterest wrote:

flyingclrs727 wrote:

He can't be tried in a criminal court for manslaughter. A wrongful death case in a civil suit won't go anywhere. The suit would have to be filed in Kenosha, WI. I seriously doubt a jury pool there would be sympathetic.

He can be sued in Civil Court for wrongfui death. The burden of proof is lower in the civil court. They only need to show that Rittenhouse caused the deaths, it will be up to family and lawyers to take it on, but there is a good case to be made that no one would have been shot or killed if
A. Rittenhouse's roommate hadn't bought the gun for him
B. Rittenhouse hadn't gone to the site
C. Rittenhouse hadn't engaged in behavior that stirred the crowd.

All of this can lead to civil charges.

They would not of been shot and killed if they did not show up to a riot.
They would not of been shot if they did not attack a person in possession of a firearm.....Facts

casinterest wrote:

windy95 wrote:

casinterest wrote:

He can be sued in Civil Court for wrongfui death. The burden of proof is lower in the civil court. They only need to show that Rittenhouse caused the deaths, it will be up to family and lawyers to take it on, but there is a good case to be made that no one would have been shot or killed if
A. Rittenhouse's roommate hadn't bought the gun for him
B. Rittenhouse hadn't gone to the site
C. Rittenhouse hadn't engaged in behavior that stirred the crowd.

All of this can lead to civil charges.

They would not of been shot and killed if they did not show up to a riot.
They would not of been shot if they did not attack a person in possession of a firearm.....Facts

Person with a firearm wouldn't have had one if he had followed the law and hadn't shown up based on lies . Fact.

Aaron747 wrote:

windy95 wrote:

casinterest wrote:

He can be sued in Civil Court for wrongfui death. The burden of proof is lower in the civil court. They only need to show that Rittenhouse caused the deaths, it will be up to family and lawyers to take it on, but there is a good case to be made that no one would have been shot or killed if
A. Rittenhouse's roommate hadn't bought the gun for him
B. Rittenhouse hadn't gone to the site
C. Rittenhouse hadn't engaged in behavior that stirred the crowd.

All of this can lead to civil charges.

They would not of been shot and killed if they did not show up to a riot.
They would not of been shot if they did not attack a person in possession of a firearm.....Facts

Fact: in English, we use ‘would not HAVE been’ in past perfect unreal conditionals.

PixelPilot wrote:

Aaron747 wrote:

windy95 wrote:

They would not of been shot and killed if they did not show up to a riot.
They would not of been shot if they did not attack a person in possession of a firearm.....Facts

Fact: in English, we use ‘would not HAVE been’ in past perfect unreal conditionals.

Come on man. Grammar police?
Is everybody around the world required to use flawless English now?