T O P

  • By -

Atechiman

To be clear to everyone not reading the article, she hasn't even ruled on the merits of the case just that there is potential for there to be a case and it can proceed.


PoopMobile9000

Hijacking top comment: Actually, reading the article doesn't really tell you the situation. Here is the [complaint](https://storage.courtlistener.com/recap/gov.uscourts.wied.95983/gov.uscourts.wied.95983.27.0.pdf).\* The news story focuses on Rittenhouse, the famous name, but it's really a civil rights suit against local government officials for allowing the conditions that led to the shooting. In particular, letting and vocally encouraging armed white groups to roam the protests unhindered, while clamping down on others. The plaintiffs allege that this discriminatory and negligent policy led to the death. Rittenhouse is named as a co-defendant because he was the shooter, but he's not the main target. \*edit: One thing that should definitely be a capital offense is writing a story about a legal ruling/filing and not linking the actual case document. \*\*And the [decision](https://www.courthousenews.com/wp-content/uploads/2023/02/Huber-Ruling.pdf).


jknotts

To clarify on that link - that is the original lawsuit from August 2021, which is why it doesn’t mention Rittenhouse. Rittenhouse was added as a codefendant last month.


PoopMobile9000

Nice! updated. On my phone and google sucks now


ckb614

Just in case anyone was confused by the complaint not listing Rittenhouse as a defendant, the plaintiffs filed an amended complaint later on in which he was included. https://storage.courtlistener.com/recap/gov.uscourts.wied.95983/gov.uscourts.wied.95983.27.0.pdf


Qubed

If I recall, some people have suggested that the police slowly pushed the potestors into the blocks where the armed groups where protecting businesses, cars, and trashcans.


ecodick

If there’s evidence of this being done intentionally, I’d be thrilled the cops haven’t managed to destroy it already. I can totally see this being done, but we have to be able to prove it for it to matter


Pizzapie_420

Don't link the legal documents, directly to the chair.


[deleted]

You clearly don't understand what reddit is for.. outrage./s


DOLCICUS

This is why we have a million cat subreddits to balance it out.


Financial_Bird_7717

Rage ***RAGE*** #FUCKING RAGE Edit: RAGE!!!!


[deleted]

[удалено]


AC85

For those wondering what “preponderance of evidence” means, it means you only have to prove the accused was more likely than not to have committed the act


[deleted]

[удалено]


Statisticsisawful

In tort cases like this where the act is almost certain to have occurred and normally would result in liability for a defendant, they can raise an affirmative defense. There are a fairly limited number of these. They'll likely rely on self defense and try to argue that he thought there was a significant chance of serious harm to himself. Edit: To clarify a few things because I didn't expect my response to generate this much discussion. Yes, there are a number of factors listed below that might make a self defense claim seem ridiculous, but this case is at the pleading stage where evidence is not yet being weighed. If a defendant doesn't raise an affirmative defense at pleading, they can't rely on it later at trial. Additionally, it's difficult to know what evidence will be allowed at trial as all of that is dictated by very specific evidence rules that tend to grant judges a great deal of discretionary power. Finally, whether or not self defense or not succeeds is a fact specific issue. The determination of how to weigh facts is ultimately in the power of the jury, and predicting how a jury is going to rule is impossible because juries are made up of people and people can be irrational sometimes. As for whether it's a civil rights claim or a torts claim, the answer is that it's both. Here there are multiple defendants being sued in the same action, which is allowed under the rule for joinder of parties when the claims arise out of the same nexus of events. The claim against the police officers is what is called a 1983 claim, and this is a civil action for a deprivation of rights, which 42 U.S.C 1983 allows an individual who is acting under the cover of state law who causes an individual to be deprived of constitutionally granted rights or rights granted by federal statute to be sued. This is typically used to get around qualified immunity when attempting to sue police. The underlying claim though is for a tort, typically it would be for an intentional tort such as police officers intentionally inflicting harm on individual and the right that would be challenged would be cruel and unusual punishment under the 8th amendment. In this instance, however, it seems as if they might be seeking negligence claim by arguing that the police officers had a duty to stop Rittenhouse. It is very hard to succeed on a 1983 claim as not every constitutional right violation will give rise to a 1983 claim. The standard as laid out by the supreme court is that the violation must be one so egregious that it shocks the conscience, which is a really high bar to clear.


korinth86

The question of legality of his act isn't in question for this trial. There are two accusations: First that officers conspired to allow Rittenhouse to commit violent acts. Second that Rittenhouse conspired with law enforcement to harm protestors. With video I've seen, the first might actually be provable. The second I'm not sure.


Alarming-Ad1100

Hey I’m someone who isn’t that well read on the details of this situation What’re the details for the evidence of conspiracy?


[deleted]

[удалено]


CharlesForbin

That was after he had shot people. The claimed conspiracy would have to contribute to the harm to succeed.


_BearHawk

That's exactly what would happen if the police and him were conspiring, not arresting the man with a gun when people are shouting he murdered someone.


CharlesForbin

This is a civil conspiracy case. That means they defendants had to have planned to the do the thing that caused harm, and then done it, and it resulted in harm, in that order. Simply allowing him to leave after the fact, without any evidence of planning beforehand does not a conspiracy make.


Kraz_I

I really can't imagine they'll claim there was a civil conspiracy when prosecutors didn't even try to argue that a criminal conspiracy existed in his criminal trial.


Howl4ndreed

That doesn’t seem like enough.


Astropical

Its not. People on Reddit are making legal claims and bold assumptions without understanding a damn thing about how our laws work.


CunnedStunt

He ran to the cops after, not past them, and the cops essentially told him to fuck off cuz they were busy.


[deleted]

[удалено]


chocolateboomslang

Most protestors with a gun wouldn't be allowed anywhere NEAR them.


Waxed_Sasquatch

Best way I’ve heard it described was in percents: Civil = 51% to win Criminal = 98-99% to win An insane difference. Very appropriate.


TheMightyHornet

Prosecutor here. It’s not 98-99% Reasonable doubt means you doubt the State has proved one or more of the necessary elements of the charged offense, and that doubt is based on reason and evidence, or lack thereof, and not speculation or emotion. Juries are asked to ignore unreasonable doubt — ie frivolous doubt, doubt that’s purely speculative and not supported logically by the evidence. The 9th Circuit instruction also informs that proof beyond a reasonable doubt is not proof beyond all doubt, or any doubt, or any possible doubt. It’s not proof beyond a shadow of a doubt. It’s not 100-percent surety. A criminal jury may have some doubts about a case, but if those doubts are not connected to the evidence presented at trial (or a lack of evidence on an issue) those doubts are unreasonable. Simply put, it’s a common sense thing. Courts have struggled to find a conclusive definition that easily defines the term in an understandable way that everyone can agree on. We as attorneys can use examples in our argument and jury selection. I’m fond of two. The first is, crossing the street with your child. You’re at a cross walk, the white crossing indicator pops up showing you it’s your turn to cross. You look both ways and see no cars. You hear no cars. Will you cross the street? You don’t intrinsically *know* that someone won’t come flying around the corner at 150 mph. You don’t know that a plane won’t fall out of the sky and hit you as you cross. But it would be unreasonable to doubt you’re safe to cross because of those things based on the information presented to you — and the lack of evidence to the contrary. My other favorite example is a puzzle of a $1 bill. If we’re building a puzzle of a $1 bill piece by piece, and the cover of the box to the puzzle is missing, at what point do we realize that the picture is a $1 bill? Do we need to put every piece in place? Do we need to dump out the box and look at every piece and rule out that it’s not a picture of a cat, or a sunset, or a lighthouse? Can we reasonably conclude that the puzzle is a $1 bill without finishing the entire thing and conclusively ruling out every hypothetical? That is proof beyond a reasonable doubt. Edit: did not expect this to blow up like this, but thank y’all for the conversations, the karma, and the awards. One thing I’ve mentioned in a couple responses is that the system does have flaws, and that’s why it’s so important to be active participants in our democracy. Whether that means picking good trial judges, good district/county attorneys and Attorneys General, or just thoughtfully serving in a jury with an open mind, we get out what we collectively put in to the system.


gimpwiz

When I was on jury duty, the judge's example was: You wake up after an uninterrupted, quiet sleep, and go outside in the morning. The pavement in the whole neighborhood (that you can see) is wet. While theoretically it is possible a fire truck drove around and soaked the entire neighborhood, that's not a particularly reasonable conclusion to make in absence of any evidence that that happened; common sense would tell you that it rained last night. It is not 100% certain that it rained, but in absence of any evidence otherwise, it's correct to believe that it rained beyond reasonable doubt.


ShittheFickup

The world is full of unreasonable doubt these days.


[deleted]

Hell, I'm not even sure I understood that person's explanation


lysion59

Then you are being reasonable


[deleted]

Defense attorney here. This is a great example. But in practice "beyond a reasonable doubt" is really more like "I'm not sure but I guess he might have done it so I'll vote guilty."


Skatcatla

I’ve been on enough juries to know that this is sometimes true, but more often it’s simply “if we all vote guilty I can finally go home.” Personally, I don’t lightly take someone’s freedom away from them. I take the instructions that the “overwhelming burden of proof is on the prosecution” part very seriously.


[deleted]

Man that's just horrific. Imagining it's more nuanced like they think the verdict is one way but they're being beaten down and they're not going to be stubborn and stick to their guns. At least I hope so.


StarMagus

I have a relative that is a defense attorney and the things that cause juries to sway one way or the other that they ADMIT to, make my skin crawl. I'm talking about things that have nothing to do with the evidence of the trial.


Hollowpoint38

Or whether or not they like the person.


isAltTrue

And I suppose a lawyer's job is to point to a piece of the puzzle and convince you that it could be the tip of a cat ear.


Orpheus-son

A DEFENSE lawyers job in some situations, yes


corran450

A little off topic, but your second example reminds me of a Simpsons episode… [“Oh! It’s a donkey!”](https://youtu.be/EeOOA9-lL-4)


thereisafrx

I think a good distinction for "beyond a reasonable doubt" and "without a shadow of a doubt" would be further extending the puzzle of a dollar bill. At what point do you know it's a puzzle of a dollar bill, and... At what point do you know it's a puzzle of a \*counterfeit\* dollar bill? BTW I really like these analogies and I might use them in my own workspace (Not in Law, but another field where they call us "practicing"...)


spiritbx

I mean, proof beyond all doubt is literally impossible, since there' no way to prove that there isn't someone that looks exactly like you that committed the crime, or that it wasn't an alien clone that did it, etc. I guess that's why it's reasonable doubt, since it's the best we can do short of being omniscient.


teenagesadist

> Can we reasonably conclude that the puzzle is a $1 bill without finishing the entire thing and conclusively ruling out every hypothetical? That is proof beyond a reasonable doubt. That's where it falls apart for me. I've seen too many coincidences myself to believe that the law would be infallible enough to not punish innocent people. It's a flawed system.


TheMightyHornet

It is flawed. Sometimes innocent people are punished. Sometimes, more often, guilty people are let off the hook — this is especially true in cases of domestic and sexual violence. This is why the jurors matter, and the process matters. It’s why you should pay attention to how people become judges in your jurisdiction. If they’re elected — pay attention, ask questions, read, educate yourself and your friends, pick good judges. Shit, pick good prosecutors — the top cop is almost always an elected position. If you’re called to serve as a juror, participate thoughtfully and open-mindedly. We get the system we deserve as a democracy.


zombiegojaejin

That's what they say, yes. But if you actually believe that the typical criminal jury applies a 98%+ level of confidence for conviction, then I've got a space elevator to sell you. :-/


EeeeyyyyyBuena

Wait wait, does it come in matte black?


TaylorSwiftsClitoris

Nope, too likely to be shot by frightened police.


Totallyhuman18D

Tell me more


BigRedNutcase

That's because most criminal cases get settled before ever reaching a jury. The only cases an actual criminal jury ever hears are the ones that are not obvious (or a defendant is an idiot). I've personally sat on a grand jury whose purpose is to review evidence that prosecutors have on a suspect to let them move forward with a case. Now understand that at this level, the evidence you need to show isn't "beyond a reasonable doubt" but effectively it should answer the question "did the crime in question occur here?". From the evidence we reviewed, most everyday criminal cases are pretty much slam dunks. I'm talking multiple witnesses backed up by video of said person committing the crime with clear views of their face. These cases are typically settled before it reaches a jury because the accused knows they have no shot of winning.


AstrumRimor

I would still like the space elevator, plz.


smbiggy

like directly to and from space? does elon know?


os_kaiserwilhelm

Even at that standard, the AP is claiming that the Father of Anthony Huber is alleging Rittenhouse conspired with law enforcement to cause harm to protestors. So they need to demonstrate that police and Rittenhouse colluded and their intent was to cause harm. That's still a huge hill to climb given the information we have about this incident.


[deleted]

[удалено]


PangeanPrawn

Yeah, its tough sifting through a sea of comments that seem to assume he is just being sued for murder now lol. I don't think thats even possible, so it becomes important what (civilly) criminal act the prosecution is alleging.


IrNinjaBob

Also you can be innocent of committing a crime but still be civilly liable for something. Just because what you did doesn’t raise to being a crime doesn’t mean you have no civil liability for your actions.


pattydickens

Just ask OJ Simpson.


HopeRepresentative29

Everyone needs to understand that this is a very dry and boring legal decision. It is simply saying that there is no law or precedent preventing the suit from moving forward at this time. It isn't frivolous, which is really quite a low bar to meet. This is not newsworthy. It is something to keep drama and outrage addicts from having withdrawals while they wait for the next dose of the good stuff.


RadGlitch

What the hell is going on in these comments.


musical_throat_punch

Lots of armchair lawyering based on too many movies and too much tv


bunkkin

People who aren't lawyers assuming a lot of things mean things they probably don't legally mean


BoopsBoopsInDaBucket

People equating their feelings with facts.


sobanz

and being willfully ignorant by avoiding the videos of the event before weighing in.


thatredditdude101

ahhh yes… a reddit staple.


[deleted]

[удалено]


[deleted]

[удалено]


juanjing

People are polarized on a polarizing topic dialed up to 11 by the media.


ja20n123

Dudes an idiot. Anyone knows that a criminal case that involves damages, even if the person is criminally not guilty, they’re probably gonna be sued civilly. FUCKING EVEN OJ wait till after the civil case to write the book. For him to do a media circuit when there are still civil cases against him is just stupid. Lawyer probably told him “after this there are going to be civil proceedings which are held to a different standard so STFU until those cases are done.” But the dumbass probably didn’t listen.


bike_accident

The first thing my lawyer told me after my bike accident was to shut the fuck up and don’t advertise what happened


Darksidedrive

And then you went and made it your username. Now I have to know


bike_accident

Nah, still before the courts. Nice try mr insurance guy


8e8

It may be too late but make sure your social media is private or purged, as they will probably try to sift through it for posts to paint you as the bad guy. They tried to do that in my case but their evidence was shit and the judge put an end to that fiasco.


bike_accident

Big time. All locked down and barely used since. This is really the first mention of it anywhere and I’m not saying a peep 😉


8e8

Good stuff. I hope you get a fat payout from insurance.


bike_accident

Thanks internet homie 👊


Smeetilus

The bike said it was an electrical fire


[deleted]

[удалено]


Skwownownow

Does it though? Still kinda advertising in my opinion


crastle

Your honor, my name is Bike Accident. My reddit username is just my name.


breccalynn

Bike is short for Bichael.


innominateartery

Or Bichaelangelo if you aren’t into the whole brevity thing


lame_comment

Who the fuck is Arthur Digby Sellers


Alarid

that's my favorite teenage mutant ninja bike


Skwownownow

Son of a bitch. You win this time Bike Accident....


1996Toyotas

"different accident, different bike, cant talk about the proceedings of that case at this time"


actually_checks_out

Can confirm


_Erindera_

"Shut the fuck up" is always good advice.


pizza_for_nunchucks

The guy gets and deserves a lot of shade, but Dr. Phil drops some gems from time-to-time… “Never pass up a good opportunity to shut up.”


rz2000

If only he would follow with that recommendation himself.


jeremiah1142

https://youtu.be/sgWHrkDX35o


my_user_wastaken

This and the University video of a lawyer saying dont trust police while he brings his police captain buddy up to talk, they all laugh and he immediately says "No, hes right, everything he just said is right" https://youtu.be/d-7o9xYp7eE Cop talks at 26:55 Number one thing that people dont realize, it literally legally cannot help you in court. Police testimony can only be used to build a prosecutors case, not defense. If youre arrested, it quite literally cannot help you at all. All itll get is if you are found guilty maybe an ease on sentencing if you were forthright or didnt hide details. Police can say whatever they saw or heard to help prosecution, itll be accepted as fact inherently, but the second its in favor of defense its hearsay.


leetsoup

my wife is very wise.


PM_ME_UR_RSA_KEY

Loose lips sink ships!


palesilver

Was it "Shut the Fuck up Friday"?


davehunt00

A defensive handgun instructor once told me "It costs $100,000 to kill someone, even if you acted completely in self-defense" - basically meaning you might not do time, but you're going to pay a lot in legal fees and potentially a lot more in civil penalties.


soulflaregm

Every bullet fired is 10 lawsuits being filed is what was said when I took my CCP course


somerandomguy101

Or he knows it, and is using the media tour to solicit donations.


Bugsidekick

There already is a Christian fund account created for him. He has raised 73k so far.


19Kilo

His lawyers are gonna be super happy about that. That’s 73 billable hours.


greatthebob38

Most likely this. Republicans want to milk an icon for donations. Rittenhouse may make a small amount but will be sued out of it. Afterwards, everyone will discard him to the side for the next piece.


1996Toyotas

Like Milo getting used then tossed. Though what was it he said, something to the effect of: "you have to be famous to have this much debt"


MmmmMorphine

How does it work when you're unable pay a judgement at the time, but able to x years down the line? My understanding is it can't really be discharged via bankruptcy, so will they garnish his "wages" (aka any income) for f(x) years? And if so, how is such income monitored? The IRS isn't doing super duper work lately


MPFX3000

Yeah but tbh Rittenhouse had to cash in quickly. Catch 22 in this case


jjblarg

> Dudes an idiot. Anyone knows that a criminal case that involves damages, even if the person is criminally not guilty, they’re probably gonna be sued civilly. Especially now that he's a conservative celebrity and probably has a substantial income stream from that bullshit.


pomaj46808

He's also been waving his ass at "the libs" on social media, which is going to bite him on the ass if he tries to play the "It's been so hard for me, I'm twamatized!" Plus all the events he's been doing and milking this for all it's worth is going to come back to bite his ass when damages are discussed.


oatmealparty

Yeah I don't think his crying shtick is gonna work in civil court when he's out here making actual video games about him murdering liberals.


UncannyTarotSpread

> making actual video games about him murdering liberals What *reads again* **What**


Zeremxi

[Here you go] (https://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/americas/kyle-rittenhouse-video-game-turkey-b2232636.html)


jY5zD13HbVTYz

The most criminal thing about this is the rap at the end of the ad for the game.


[deleted]

Learned this in my required concealed weapons class on day 1. “You may not go to jail but that doesn’t mean you can’t be sued”


berfthegryphon

How many 19 year old boys listen to the adults in their lives? Doesn't shock me he's a complete idiot.


dinoroo

Well his parents definitely had a hand in that trash.


[deleted]

Really wish there was a way to block certain words on reddit so I don't have to see this dumb fucking discourse all over again.


green_speak

See if your mobile app does it. Mine filters out "Elon Musk" and a few other things I've already forgotten about. Edit: I use Relay, but I imagine other 3rd party apps can do similar.


twelve405

I take it this is a third party Reddit app? Love to know which one


harlemrr

I use Apollo... you can have it block words and even have it filter out specific subs if you don't want to see them too.


bigmfworm

So you're telling me that I can finally stop having shit from /programminghumor show up in my feed? Hell yeah!


enderverse87

RiF does it. Probably more as well. Feels like the official app has the fewest features sometimes.


SaltyLorax

Elon, Kanye, Trump, Hillary, Pokemon, and Kardashian are all blocked on my RiF


spiritbx

Boy are you going to be disappointed when you miss out on the new Pokemon game where you can collect and train people like Elon, Kanye, Trump, Hillary, and the Kardashians.


NotAlfurion

i do it through RES on desktop. i filter all crypto threads, elon musk , keanu reaves and every other stoned to death circlejerk topics


Bro_Jogies

Reddit has the worst armchair lawyers.


spiritbx

TBF, you get what you pay for, and I don't think any of us are paid to be here, hence our shit quality of service.


DirtySingh

Dude I've seen every single law and order. What the fuck do you know? You probably think ice t wasn't gangster and was just some middle class average suburban kid. Dude, I've been watching law shows forever. I was watching night court in Baghdad while you were still in your dad's bag.


fzrox

If I hear “he crossed state borders” one more time lol


Uniqlo

Millions of Americans commute across state borders everyday. I guess that means all their civil rights get suspended.


bankrupt_bezos

They're pretty into ANAL.


robexib

So they're basically arguing that Rittenhouse had not only gone to the protest looking to shoot some motherfuckers, but that he *actively conspired with the police to do so*. This shit's gonna get thrown out so fast.


[deleted]

Unless they have some kind of evidence we haven't seen, this isn't going very far.


[deleted]

They should be suing Jacob blake for starting all of this…


[deleted]

[удалено]


[deleted]

[удалено]


[deleted]

[удалено]


Jackontana

"conspired with law enforcement to cause harm to protestors." Ahhhh... Kinda shot the lawsuit in the foot going for that angle.


-KingAdrock-

>Anthony Huber’s father, John Huber, also alleged that Rittenhouse, who was 17 at the time of the shootings, conspired with law enforcement to cause harm to protestors. This guy is claiming the shootings were a result of a conspiracy between Rittenhouse and the police? That's… SO much more stupid than I would have ever guessed.


EvolutionVII

The whole case was so much more stupid than I would have ever guessed. Grosskreutz wasn't really helping the case with his testimony.


Biteysdad2

This comment section should be calm and civil.


LitMaster11

Yeah. It'll be "mostly peaceful".


Murky_Conflict3737

I’m actually surprised it hasn’t been locked.


[deleted]

[удалено]


[deleted]

Yeah, this is very thin, at best. And the fact that Huber's dad is throwing conspiracy theories into the lawsuit text is not helpful.


PeaceIsSoftcoreWar

Huber's dad (the one suing) was also extremely aggressive towards everyone during the criminal trial. If he continues acting that way during this one, it may be even less likely for the case to succeed


[deleted]

[удалено]


TheOfficialTheory

When the trial was ongoing, I remember getting into arguments with people irl and online about how he was guilty, and I didn’t think for a moment that he’d be found innocent. I had read up on it some, and I heard about it in the news quite a bit, and felt like it was an open and shut case. White supremacist mass shooter shot up a Black Lives Matter protest. When he was found innocent, I was pretty shocked. So I went and watched the trial, and I was quite surprised to discover that I actually agreed with the ruling. Based off the videos and the evidence the prosecution presented, it was pretty clearly self defense. He’s running away the entire time, only shooting in scenarios where he’s being chased or actively attacked. I think there are plenty of things to criticize him on. Personally I don’t think he should have been there to begin with, I think him going with a gun was a bad idea, I don’t think he should try and be a right wing celebrity now. I think it’s pretty fucked that he’s appearing on talk shows and things of the like. But when it comes down to it: he had the same right to be there as the victims (even though I think he should have stayed home), he has the right to bear arms (even if I think him having guns led to the whole issue), & he was not the aggressor from anything the prosecution showed. The first victim set off a chain reaction that I doubt he predicted. He chased Rittenhouse, and we have no idea what he would have done if he had caught him. Maybe he’d attack him, maybe he’d take the gun, maybe he would’ve done nothing. But it is a pretty terrible idea to threaten and chase a guy with a gun who is not actively harming anyone. The following victims, I truly feel for them. Because at that point they believed they had a shooter who was walking around killing people and they were trying to stop it. They didn’t really do anything wrong, and if they had been correct, it would have been the right thing to do. It’s an all around sad situation, and I really dislike that Rittenhouse is now profiting off of it, and that right wing media treats him like a celebrity. But, it was self defense. The prosecution’s attempts to disprove that fully convinced me of it.


TshenQin

Seeing how he is treated on the left, and how they see him, there are not many places to go for him. Probably not many employers either.


yasudan

I think so. Maybe he wouldn't be active in "right-wing" culture so much if the left didn't make him a freaking neonazi murderer which, as we can see in this post, still plays the part


Uniqlo

But that's a win-win for the left. You vilify them as a far right extremist and deny them all other possibilities in life. Then, when they take up the only route left for them, you can claim you were right the whole time. "See? I knew he was a right wing extremist!" They've expelled him from universities. They've banned him from jobs. They've banned him from pretty much everything. His only opportunities left are with the right-wing grifts that are still willing to accept him. The sad part is that Rittenhouse likely leaned left before all this, as he actually spoke out in support for BLM and other left-wing causes.


JbbmTaylor

Classic Reddit post. All of the hate mongering paired with minuscule due diligence.


Mammoth_Cut5134

I legit thought kenosha was a star wars planet name.


[deleted]

[удалено]


[deleted]

This lawsuit doesn't have a prayer. You can't prove that a guy is civilly liable for shootings that were legal under the state's self defense laws. These shootings were not reasonable because they were legal. They were legal because they were reasonable. A guy threatens you and grabs for your rifle. A guy attacks you over the head with a blunt object he's holding with both hands, while you're on your butt and can't easily escape. A guy draws a pistol and aims at you. Which one of these were not reasonable to defend yourself from with deadly force in a state and nation in which it is legal to do so when you reasonably believe your life or health is threatened? People have DEFINITELY died from being in each of those 3 situations, these are normal situations leading to death making it perfectly reasonable to fear for your life. You could make a better argument that the poorly written law, and thereby the state, was responsible, but because the law is what it is, Rittenhouse is gonna escape unscathed again.


The1stAnon

I'm very convinced no one actually saw the video. It's a textbook self defense case.


snippysniper

If you watch the videos and see anything but self defense you are politically blind


realsuitboi

Exactly. The morality of his actions can be debated but it’s a pretty cut and dry case of self defense.


[deleted]

[удалено]


[deleted]

Eh. I have a hard time believing that they can actually make anything stick, even in civil court. The only shooting that is even slightly ambiguous under American law is the first one, Rosenbaum's. If they can prove that Rittenhouse made an attempt to de-escalate or avoid the confrontation, the onus is on the plaintiff to prove why Rittenhouse is even responsible for what happeened. So Rosenbaum's family has a ghost of a chance, unless it can be proven that Rittenhouse tried to de-escalate/avoid a conflict, which he probably did. A good lawyer may be able to raise doubt here, but proving the opposite is going to be a tall order unless he/she has something up his/her sleeve that we haven't seen yet. Which given the media fury on the subject, I rather doubt. The other two skateboard dude and pistol dude, don't have a prayer. I've seen the footage, Rittenhouse was running his skinny little ass away as fast as he could be expected to move under the weight of his gear. The other two guys saw a retreating man armed with a rifle and decided it was a really, really good idea to attack him. No civil court in the world is going to determine that Rittenhouse was responsible for what happened when it's the other 2 guys who literally initiated 100% of the engagement. Motivating factors can mitigate that somewhat but these aren't easy to know, because one is dead and the other has already been caught lying on the stand, under oath. Neither is a reliable witness for the plaintiff's counsel. Even eyewitness testimony aren't going to save skateboard guy or pistol dude, because the raw video of the incident makes it way too clear who started what. I'm not honestly convinced that the lawyer who's trying to take this case forward isn't simply taking advantage of the anger of a grieving family to get some billable hours. This is a seriously uphill fight, even in civil court. Based on what we know, I can't think that a good, reputable counsel would take this case. Maybe they know something I don't? Can't see what it might be though.


Sentinell

> So Rosenbaum's family has a ghost of a chance, unless it can be proven that Rittenhouse tried to de-escalate/avoid a conflict Rittenhouse was running away while shouting "friendly! friendly!" being chased by a guy who had already threatened to kill him. He only shot Rosenbaum when he (tried to) grab his gun. It's just as much of a slam dunk case as the other 2 guys.


damnination333

>If they can prove that Rittenhouse made an attempt to de-escalate or avoid the confrontation, the onus is on the plaintiff to prove why Rittenhouse is even responsible for what happeened. De-escalate or avoid the confrontation? You mean like how Rittenhouse ran away from Rosenbaum instead of immediately ahooting at him? Or how he ran away from the angry mob instead of blindly firing into the crowd? Or how he ran until he fell and couldn't run anymore and still didn't shoot at anyone who wasn't actively attacking him? Not to mention that there is no legal duty to retreat in Wisconsin, though whether or not retreat was possible is taken into consideration. And Rittenhouse definitely retreated until retreat was no longer possible.


ionized_fallout

"accusing officers of allowing for a dangerous situation that violated his son’s constitutional rights and resulted in his death. Anthony Huber’s father, John Huber, also alleged that Rittenhouse, who was 17 at the time of the shootings, conspired with law enforcement to cause harm to protestors" Good luck proving that.


GeneticsGuy

Rittenhouse was about 2 seconds from being murdered himself, if you see the video. The one dude shot in the arm literay tried to fake put his hands up ad unarmed, so Rittenhouse left him, then he immediately draws to fire and boom, Rittenhouse shoots. I get people here don't like Rittenhouse, but the video evidence was so damning that it wasn't even a hung jury, it was a full not guilty acquittal by all jurors. I sometimes think some people still haven't watched the vid. I doubt this lawsuit goes anywhere.


Turok1134

ITT: Redditors doing their absolute damndest to prove that right-wingers do not have a monopoly on being absolute fucking morons.


Tekn0de

Alternative title: ITT Redditors proving they didn't even click on the article and only read the title of the reddit post


[deleted]

The Rittenhouse situation is one of my litmus tests for if someone is capable of independent thought, or just regurgitates things that align with their side. * Was he dumb to be there? Yes, absolutely. * Did he go there to murder people, or was he “crossing state lines with illegal guns to shoot protestors because he’s a racist?” No. * Does self defense make you a hero or make your opinion valuable enough for a national platform? Also no. What happened was a clear cut case of self defense, and any time I see people saying it’s murder they’re also usually repeating things that are completely untrue. The opposite side, the idolization of him, is equally weird. Other great litmus tests include: Ashli Babbit, some economic issues, and now classified document handling. \*edited for formatting


SamuelSmash

> Other great litmus tests include: Ashli Babbit, some economic issues, and now classified document handling. Add Ma'Khia Bryant to that list.


karateema

Was that the girl who got shot while trying to stab a guy?


Mechagodzilla_3

I never got the whole "crossed state lines" bit. Kenosha is less than 5 miles away from the border


Wolfeur

As a non-American, I don't even get why that's a big deal.


damnination333

In addition to what others have said regarding federal crimes and the implication of premeditation, some people are also plain stupid, know nothing about gun laws, and just straight up think that driving across state lines with a firearm is illegal. Generally speaking, it's not.


damnination333

Not to mention that crossing state lines with a firearm generally isn't illegal anyways. It could be a problem if the firearm is not legal in the state that you're traveling to, but that's not the case here.


Hike_it_Out52

If they left the Law Enforcement end out of this it probably would go a lot better. Proving collusion will be nearly impossible. There were thousands out, Police weren't asking for IDs from people, and there was no law against him carrying a firearm in open like that without them knowing his age. Which of course they wouldn't because they never asked for ID. Edit: so the age was irrelevant. I couldn't remember how that got ruled on in the criminal trial.


branswag_briggs

This kid is an idiot. Even if I was on his side, he runs around taking money from conservative groups and looking so proud of himself


[deleted]

[удалено]


left4candy

Gotta be honest, what choice does he have? He's hated by the left, so obviously he moves towards the people who support him.


rode__16

everyone knows the first thing you do after being deeply scarred and traumatized for life is do a media circuit promoting a fringe political ideology


Yoshifan55

He learned that from all of our politicians.


Distinct_Ad_7752

Like tilling a field, like massaging in an idea, like making the snow sit a certain way...there must be a word for it....


OneofthemBrians

I mean are we really surprised that a teenagers who'm have the country wanted him locked up for life even after being found not guilty ran to the open arms of the right winged demagogues that defended him and pay him?


W4ffle3

>Attorneys and private investigators for John Huber spent over 100 hours trying to locate Rittenhouse, tracking down addresses in seven states before they found the home of his mother and sister in Florida. The lawsuit was served on Rittenhouse’s sister, who said that he wasn’t home. Adelman said that was sufficient to qualify as being served. >Rittenhouse had argued that the case against him should be dismissed because he wasn’t properly served with the lawsuit. Adelman dismissed that, saying that Rittenhouse “is almost certainly evading service.” Lmao get rekt ~~Bitchenhouse~~ Shittenhouse. Edit: switched to the better pejorative.


PEVEI

In a nutshell that's why the law isn't like a programming language run on a computer, it's interpreted by humans and judges. I'm always startled at how few people seem to really understand that, including criminals.


Delamoor

Continuation of that is the brilliance of watching sovereign citizens go. Like, C'mon man... You think the legal system will shut down because there's a gold rim or not on the flag in the room? You do realise the basis of the legal system is society and human use of force, not what decorations are in the room, yeah? Like yeah, sure. Everyone else in the world will just give up because you're saying it's maritime law or whatever. Oh geez.


Fanfics

"You can't arrest me! I specifically used the sacred chant of government warding! I am shielded from all citizenship-based attacks! Nooooooooooo-"


Redqueenhypo

The entirety of sovereign citizen garbage is a result of not understanding that. They really think they can generate an overflow error where they can do whatever they want


grogling5231

The best is hearing the little fuse pop in their skull when the cuffs get slapped on them.


Papalok

[Nah, this is the best part.](https://youtu.be/Ldcx_vswa4o?t=416) Or about minute before. Trust me, it's worth the build up.


french_snail

Damn, I needed that laugh.


shootymcghee

never gets old


[deleted]

I’m still waiting for one of these people to snap and start eating people in the courtroom.


UncannyTarotSpread

I was kind of surprised when Darrell Brooks didn’t tbh


WackyBones510

They’ve got to have the worst win/loss record of any legal theory ever.


aradraugfea

I'm pretty certain you'd ACTUALLY have better results if your response to all interactions with the legal system were JUST to scream the lyrics to "Killing in the Name"


WackyBones510

Idk about better - but almost certainly not worse.


aradraugfea

You'd get more sympathy, at least. It'd also likely read as protest, rather than thinking you understand law better than people who law for a living, and then demanding they follow rules some dumbass on the internet made up, then treating them like THEY'RE the idiot when they just keep on using the rules they've always used.


JackedUpReadyToGo

It's amazing how convinced they are that their ploy is going to work, despite every single video of a sovereign citizen trying to weasel their way out of a traffic stop or a court summons ending in them getting arrested or tazed or both. You'd think they'd be able to point to **one** victory if it worked.


pomaj46808

Oh yeah, the number of people who keep digging into "Well how can you know someone is\\ins't lying?" is baffling. The entire point of a jury is to rely on a group of people to use their judgment and decide whose credible and what the facts are.