The Rittenhouse Verdict

[Ghost of a Rider]

No, they were trying to take him into custody

I’ve seen the videos, they were kicking and swinging things at him.

But again, all he knew was that an angry mob was after him. Why? Because an angry mob was after him.

because he just shot a man. If Rittenhouse had really acted righteously, he'd have turned himself into the cops that night, not have his mommy pick him up, take him back to Antioch and lawyer up.

Again, I’ve seen the videos and he tried to turn himself in to the first cops he came across.

Yet the only people who died that night were people RITTENHOUSE KILLED.

Because they attacked him.

You can't claim that they were an angry murderous mob when they didn't actually manage to kill anyone.

They didn’t manage to kill anyone because Kyle
successfully defended himself before they could. It’s not rocket science.

If Rittenhouse kept his punk ass in Antioch, Kenosha would be a forgotten riot.

If Rosenbaum had gone straight home from the mental hospital, Kenosha would be a forgotten riot.

I don't tell them anything, it's not my job to catch those people.

Irrelevant. It was an asinine argument because those same thugs you say look out for the neighborhoods are responsible for more deaths of black children and innocents than the cops.

In Chicago, 87% of murders go unsolved. Part of that is because the community doesn't trust the police, part of that is because the police don't give a shit. I mean, it's just some dead black kids, it's not like an actor blamed Trump supporters for beating him up. That requires an all hands on deck investigation.

If these murders go unsolved because they don’t trust the cops then they have no one to blame but themselves for the murders remaining unsolved.

This is what’s known as circular reasoning: I don’t trust the cops to solve murders so the murders don’t get solved because I don’t trust the cops to solve murders.

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

"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?"

So questioning why he was in the middle of a riot with a firearm and interpreting that as negligent conduct could be enough for him to lose the civil case.

"In a civil case you just have to prove negligence,"

failure to take proper care in doing something.

He properly shot three of the people who attacked him.

"Did his conduct fall below the standard of care that the average person would have?"

I think the average person would have also shot the three attackers.

So questioning why he was in the middle of a riot with a firearm

To defend himself.

and interpreting that as negligent conduct

You'd have to misinterpret to come to that conclusion.

 

[Ghost of a Rider]

Sooner or later, the Protesters will bring their own ARs.

They already have. They did that in seattle.

But this raises one important observation and one important question:

1.) If rioters arm themselves then that is their right as American citizens and I for one would not deny them that right.

2.) If they do then those who support the riots would be faced with an uncomfortable question: Do I support those who arm themselves so as to loot, burn, destroy and otherwise break the law with impunity or do I support the ones who arm themselves to prevent it?

 

[Who_Me?]

"In a civil case you just have to prove negligence,"

failure to take proper care in doing something.

He properly shot three of the people who attacked him.

"Did his conduct fall below the standard of care that the average person would have?"

I think the average person would have also shot the three attackers.

So questioning why he was in the middle of a riot with a firearm

To defend himself.

and interpreting that as negligent conduct

You'd have to misinterpret to come to that conclusion.

The other thing that is going against him is the fact that the only people killed that night were at the hands of Rittenhouse. Believe me the burden of proof is less. The question of why a kid was in Kenosha with a loaded firearm is the broader issue and is it below the standard of care that the average person would have. Running through the streets of Kenosha with a rifle could be perceived at a threat to others that Rittenhouse posed. We will see.

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

The other thing that is going against him is the fact that the only people killed that night were at the hands of Rittenhouse. Believe me the burden of proof is less. The question of why a kid was in Kenosha with a loaded firearm is the broader issue and is it below the standard of care that the average person would have. Running through the streets of Kenosha with a rifle could be perceived at a threat to others that Rittenhouse posed. We will see.

The other thing that is going against him is the fact that the only people killed that night were at the hands of Rittenhouse.

Why does that go against him? He didn't shoot anyone who didn't attack him first.

Believe me the burden of proof is less.

I believe that. I don't believe that self-defense suddenly doesn't matter in a civil case.

The question of why a kid was in Kenosha with a loaded firearm is the broader issue

Did he have the right to be in Kenosha? Did he have the right to carry a loaded firearm?

I'd say yes and yes.

and is it below the standard of care that the average person would have.

The average person attacked by those 3 criminals would have also defended themselves if able.

Running through the streets of Kenosha with a rifle could be perceived at a threat to others

Could be, but wasn't.

 

[Who_Me?]

The other thing that is going against him is the fact that the only people killed that night were at the hands of Rittenhouse.

Why does that go against him? He didn't shoot anyone who didn't attack him first.

Believe me the burden of proof is less.

I believe that. I don't believe that self-defense suddenly doesn't matter in a civil case.

The question of why a kid was in Kenosha with a loaded firearm is the broader issue

Did he have the right to be in Kenosha? Did he have the right to carry a loaded firearm?

I'd say yes and yes.

and is it below the standard of care that the average person would have.

The average person attacked by those 3 criminals would have also defended themselves if able.

Running through the streets of Kenosha with a rifle could be perceived at a threat to others

Could be, but wasn't.

The issue is would the average person come to Kenosha with a firearm? Why was Rittenhouse the only one who killed two people that night? Could Rittenhouse, by virtue of running through the streets with a rifle, be perceived as the threat?

My money is on wrongful death. We'll see!!!

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

The issue is would the average person come to Kenosha with a firearm? Why was Rittenhouse the only one who killed two people that night? Could Rittenhouse, by virtue of running through the streets with a rifle, be perceived as the threat?

My money is on wrongful death. We'll see!!!

The issue is would the average person come to Kenosha with a firearm?

Many came to Kenosha with a firearm. Will they all be sued?

Why was Rittenhouse the only one who killed two people that night?

Why did those two people attack him?

Could Rittenhouse, by virtue of running through the streets with a rifle, be perceived as the threat?

He was on the streets for hours with that rifle. How many people called to report a threat?
How many people did he shoot? He had lots of bullets, why didn't he start shooting people hours earlier?

My money is on wrongful death.

Wisconsin law defines a "wrongful death" as a death that is caused by another party's "wrongful act, neglect or default," in a situation when the deceased could have file a personal injury lawsuit had he or she lived.

Wrongful Death Lawsuits in Wisconsin

A look at wrongful death claims in Wisconsin, including who can file the lawsuit, types of potential damages, and more.

www.nolo.com

I don't think self-defense is a wrongful act or neglect. Do you?

 

[JoeB131]

when did kyle fight anyone??

according to the video and evidence in court rosenbuam just attacked kyle for putting out a fire,,

Attacked by an unarmed man who was maybe 5'4" tall? really? With all your buddies nearby.

Why? Self-defense isn't self-defense in a civil trial?

Nope. The problem is that in a criminal trial, the burden was "beyond a reasonable doubt." In a civil trial, the burden would be "perponderance of the evidence..." a much lower threshold.

On top of that, the other defendents would be the City of Kenosha, that allowed this armed group of thugs to violate curfew and walk around with weapons.

 

[Who_Me?]

The issue is would the average person come to Kenosha with a firearm?

Many came to Kenosha with a firearm. Will they all be sued?

Why was Rittenhouse the only one who killed two people that night?

Why did those two people attack him?

Could Rittenhouse, by virtue of running through the streets with a rifle, be perceived as the threat?

He was on the streets for hours with that rifle. How many people called to report a threat?
How many people did he shoot? He had lots of bullets, why didn't he start shooting people hours earlier?

My money is on wrongful death.

Wisconsin law defines a "wrongful death" as a death that is caused by another party's "wrongful act, neglect or default," in a situation when the deceased could have file a personal injury lawsuit had he or she lived.

Wrongful Death Lawsuits in Wisconsin

A look at wrongful death claims in Wisconsin, including who can file the lawsuit, types of potential damages, and more.

www.nolo.com

I don't think self-defense is a wrongful act or neglect. Do you?

Your points are getting weaker and weaker. The next jury will decide.

 

[progressive hunter]

Attacked by an unarmed man who was maybe 5'4" tall? really? With all your buddies nearby.




Nope. The problem is that in a criminal trial, the burden was "beyond a reasonable doubt." In a civil trial, the burden would be "perponderance of the evidence..." a much lower threshold.

On top of that, the other defendents would be the City of Kenosha, that allowed this armed group of thugs to violate curfew and walk around with weapons.

according to the court testimony and evidence it was kyle that was attacked,,

youre not still watching CNN for your news are you??

 

[JoeB131]

I’ve seen the videos, they were kicking and swinging things at him.

But again, all he knew was that an angry mob was after him. Why? Because an angry mob was after him.

Uh, any reasonable person would realize the angry mob was after him because he just shot a man in cold blood.

Again, I’ve seen the videos and he tried to turn himself in to the first cops he came across.

Really, what I saw was he walked right past a bunch of cop cars that didn't even stop to talk to him because, hey, he was white.

successfully defended himself before they could. It’s not rocket science.

Except that there wree hundreds of people out that night, and Kyle was the only one who managed to kill anyone.

Irrelevant. It was an asinine argument because those same thugs you say look out for the neighborhoods are responsible for more deaths of black children and innocents than the cops.

You do get the difference between gang-bangers who shoot people caught in the crossfire and cops who shoot people with the full support of government, right? And why the latter would be more offensive to people.

If these murders go unsolved because they don’t trust the cops then they have no one to blame but themselves for the murders remaining unsolved.

Or they don't trust the cops, because they do shit like

Shoot a young man who had called for help because he was having a mental health crisis, and he not only killed the young man, but a woman who was hiding behind a door in the building.

Chicago shooting: Police kill man, say female neighbor shot 'accidentally'

A Chicago police officer shot dead a male college student as well as a mother of five. The police department said the woman's death was "accidental."

www.cnbc.com

Or the woman who was forced to stand naked for 30 minutes in her own living room because the cops had the wrong address on a warrant.

https://www.washingtonpost.com/nation/2021/11/11/chicago-police-anjanette-young-raid/

"Hey bob, I don't think she's the guy we are looking for."
How can you tell?"
"She doesn't have a dick!"

This is what’s known as circular reasoning: I don’t trust the cops to solve murders so the murders don’t get solved because I don’t trust the cops to solve murders.

More like, "I don't trust cops to solve murders because their rampant disregard for the black community often leads to them making things a LOT worse."

 

[M14 Shooter]

The issue is would the average person come to Kenosha with a firearm? Why was Rittenhouse the only one who killed two people that night? Could Rittenhouse, by virtue of running through the streets with a rifle, be perceived as the threat?
My money is on wrongful death. We'll see!!!

Rittenhouse was attacked
/ wrongful death

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

Attacked by an unarmed man who was maybe 5'4" tall? really? With all your buddies nearby.




Nope. The problem is that in a criminal trial, the burden was "beyond a reasonable doubt." In a civil trial, the burden would be "perponderance of the evidence..." a much lower threshold.

On top of that, the other defendents would be the City of Kenosha, that allowed this armed group of thugs to violate curfew and walk around with weapons.

Attacked by an unarmed man who was maybe 5'4" tall? really?

Don't forget crazy, convicted child rapist. Really.

The problem is that in a criminal trial, the burden was "beyond a reasonable doubt." In a civil trial, the burden would be "perponderance of the evidence..." a much lower threshold.

Right. Lower threshold. Still self-defense.

On top of that, the other defendents would be the City of Kenosha, that allowed this armed group of thugs to violate curfew and walk around with weapons.

Better chance suing Kenosha. Of course the dead criminals were also violating curfew.
Plus, they were attacking Rittenhouse.

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

Your points are getting weaker and weaker. The next jury will decide.

Right, because the video that showed their attacks won't work in a civil case.......durr.

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

Uh, any reasonable person would realize the angry mob was after him because he just shot a man in cold blood.


Really, what I saw was he walked right past a bunch of cop cars that didn't even stop to talk to him because, hey, he was white.



Except that there wree hundreds of people out that night, and Kyle was the only one who managed to kill anyone.



You do get the difference between gang-bangers who shoot people caught in the crossfire and cops who shoot people with the full support of government, right? And why the latter would be more offensive to people.



Or they don't trust the cops, because they do shit like

Shoot a young man who had called for help because he was having a mental health crisis, and he not only killed the young man, but a woman who was hiding behind a door in the building.

Chicago shooting: Police kill man, say female neighbor shot 'accidentally'

A Chicago police officer shot dead a male college student as well as a mother of five. The police department said the woman's death was "accidental."

www.cnbc.com

Or the woman who was forced to stand naked for 30 minutes in her own living room because the cops had the wrong address on a warrant.

https://www.washingtonpost.com/nation/2021/11/11/chicago-police-anjanette-young-raid/

"Hey bob, I don't think she's the guy we are looking for."
How can you tell?"
"She doesn't have a dick!"




More like, "I don't trust cops to solve murders because their rampant disregard for the black community often leads to them making things a LOT worse."

Uh, any reasonable person would realize the angry mob was after him because he just shot a man in cold blood.

Which members of the angry mob saw the child rapist get shot?

 

[Stann]

Without the courts properly operating as they should be, then the voting booth sadly is no longer viable for many in their states (all depending). The democrat's have attempted to weaponize the court systems in an attempt to get it's agenda's through without resistance, and in the case of Rittenhouse we had a hold out Court that hadn't fallen to the Democrat agenda yet. That is what has driven the left crazy with the verdict, because they didn't think that there were still that kind of resistance left after their government got in charge. Keep your eyes peeled American's, and watch the circus as it attempts to reverse this win in any desperate way imaginable.

The Republicans ( via trump ) radicalized the courts to lean towards the far right. Just look at the makeup of the supreme Court, it's totally out of balance. The Texas abortion law should have been shut down immediately by them, hopefully it still will be, we don't need any insane laws in this country. We are free Nation not a Nazi Nation.

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

Just look at the makeup of the supreme Court, it's totally out of balance.

What is the proper balance? How do you know?

 

[Bob Blaylock]

Wisconsin law defines a "wrongful death" as a death that is caused by another party's "wrongful act, neglect or default," in a situation when the deceased could have file a personal injury lawsuit had he or she lived.

And it is already established as a legal fact, that the acts on Mt. Rittenhouse's part that resulted in the deaths of two subhuman pieces of criminal shit, and the injury to another, were not wrongful acts, neglects, nor defaults; but were legitimate acts of self-defense.

That cuts the heart out of any basis for a civil wrongful death suit against him on the basis of those acts.

 

[Ghost of a Rider]

Uh, any reasonable person would realize the angry mob was after him because he just shot a man in cold blood.

The mob itself was unreasonable.

Really, what I saw was he walked right past a bunch of cop cars that didn't even stop to talk to him because, hey, he was white.

With his hands in the air.

Except that there wree hundreds of people out that night, and Kyle was the only one who managed to kill anyone.

He was the only one attacked.

You do get the difference between gang-bangers who shoot people caught in the crossfire and cops who shoot people with the full support of government, right? And why the latter would be more offensive to people.

You do understand that you’re telling me these people trust the thugs that are more likely to kill their children than they do the cops, right?

More like, "I don't trust cops to solve murders because their rampant disregard for the black community often leads to them making things a LOT worse."

Fine. So the murders will continue to go unsolved.

 

[JoeB131]

Don't forget crazy, convicted child rapist. Really.

Not relevant...

Right. Lower threshold. Still self-defense.

Nope. Remember, again, the burden on the prosecution in the criminal case was to prove that it wasn't self-defense BEYOND ALL REASONABLE DOUBT. The fact the jury struggled with this for a couple of days says this wasn't as clear cut as you like to think.

A civil case, they just have to prove Kyle was negligent when he created the situation.

Also, unlike the Worst Lawyer in Kenosha County, the civil case is going to have lawyers who are going to know what they are doing.

Better chance suing Kenosha. Of course the dead criminals were also violating curfew.
Plus, they were attacking Rittenhouse.

None of which matters. It's already been established that you can hold institutions accountable civilly EVEN IF the injured parties were breaking the law. I direct you to the kid who fell through a painted skylight while stealing lights from a school.

Which members of the angry mob saw the child rapist get shot?

All of them.

And it is already established as a legal fact, that the acts on Mt. Rittenhouse's part that resulted in the deaths of two subhuman pieces of criminal shit, and the injury to another, were not wrongful acts, neglects, nor defaults; but were legitimate acts of self-defense.

That cuts the heart out of any basis for a civil wrongful death suit against him on the basis of those acts.

Once again- the Simpson case.

OJ was acquitted in the criminal case, but STILL found civilly liable in the civil suit. Same facts, same evidence, two different results.

The difference- Better lawyering and a lower threshold of proof.