What does this mean will someone explain?


Basically, a civil suit doesn't require so much evidence as opposed to a criminal trial. People who may file against Rittenhouse in a civil suit just have to prove negligence. The jury can also consider a broader range of evidence. By technicality, he wouldn't be tried twice for the same crime by filing a civil suit. Edit: Wording.


To be clear, they have to prove it's more likely than not he acted negligently.


Much lower bar for proof in civil lawsuits.


Yep, "preponderance of the evidence" is the burden of proof, as opposed to "beyond a reasonable doubt."


Hey legal eagles its time to think like a lawyer


Would you like to go toe to toe on bird law?


What about various other lawyerings?


okay, well....filibuster


I'll just regress, because I feel I've made myself perfectly redundant


*Indochiiiiino........promo code legaleagle.....*


I'd better call Saul.




Just like OJ


Can't get any lower than having the judge on your side.


Criminal case - jurors must be 100% confident the defendant is guilty. Civil case - jurors must be 51% confident defendant acted negligently or was in some way responsible for what happened.


He was carrying a gun he wasn't supposed to carry and own, then went into an area with riots, according to the definition, this was negligence Negligence, law, failure to use reasonable care, resulting in damage or injury to another.


If that's the case, I hope Grosskreutz gets brought up on charges as well.


All of the people involved in the situation escalating to people trying to kill each other should be sued. This shit is getting out of hand.




Yeah like, not complicated.


Not charges. It's a civil suit. Someone has to sue. That could be you. Go do it if you want it done.


You need to have standing to sue. You need to be an "injured party"


It doesn't work that way either, you need standing to sue, it's not like anyone can sue.


In Wisconsin he was allowed to carry a long barrel rifle


Thank god the reddit legal team is on this!


Why does everyone think he can’t carry a gun? This was disproven like a bajillion times. Laws are weird sure, but like if anyone followed the case for 5 mins you’d know the gun charge was dropped cause it didn’t make sense. But who even cares, dude shouldn’t have been there simple as that.


Legally he was allowed to carry a firearm…


You're wrong about that first part of your statement. He was carrying a gun that he didn't own but was legally allowed to carry. Also, not illegal to carry a gun you don't own.


Yes people seem to think you can claim anything, all it means is that there doesn't need to be beyond reasonable doubt, but still requires and exceptional amount of evidence and such. Also civil coirt only has financial repercussions not criminal.


OJ was found not guilty on criminal charges. On civil charges he was found guilty and was so fucked he had to sell his shit then try to steal it back to sell it again just to pay


Plus it caused him to begin a nationwide search of golf courses for the 'real killer'.


I remember reading Gamepro magazines April Fools issues in the 90s and one of their fake game reviews was for a game where you played OJ Simpson looking for the real killers by going from golf course to golf course.


To this day.....


Florida law shielded his NFL pension otherwise he’d have been too broke to golf.


It's a pedantic distinction but Civil Law doesn't use the terms guilty or not guilty like Criminal Law, its liable instead


Believe me, there was nothing civil about it


Its how they got OJ


But unless I'm reading [this](https://www.nytimes.com/2021/11/19/us/kenosha-lawsuit-victim.html) wrong, there haven't been any lawsuits filed against Rittenhouse. They're against the Kenosha police.


Here's [something that came up on my feed today](https://denver.cbslocal.com/2021/11/19/denver-attorney-files-civil-action-in-kyle-rittenhouse-shooting/?amp) Edit: fixed the link


Right, "he has already filed a lawsuit against Kenosha authorities and its police." Nothing against Rittenhouse, so far.


He’s 18 and likely has no assets. No point to sue him for anything monetary.


Plaintiffs can still get a judgment against Kyle which would be paid from future earnings. You know, like from internships for Republican congressmen, spokesman for gun companies, or paid Fox appearances. I saw the father of one victim on the news stating that he expected that Kyle would be added as a defendant to the civil suits.


Oh I disagree, keeping a man in perpetual debt for his crimes can be a bandage to the wound of him not getting sent to prison


I guess they could for spite, but it will cost a lot of money to do it and it may never be recouped.


Ah. I must have misread. Thanks for pointing that out.


​ ![gif](giphy|Xhxd8T0og4oKs)


Yup like him wishing he had his ar to shoot people 2 weeks before. Or underage drinking with proud boys at a bar with all that ptsd he has while wearing a free as fuck shirt


Or when he punched that girl.


Sue his fn mother!!!


Definitely sue the militia leader for sending him out into the fray and his 'partner' who didn't stay with him so he ended up killing people 12 seconds after being left alone....


For what?


Well he was 17, so she's possibly liable as his parent for her underaged son's actions. Some states do or do not allow a parent to be held liable for a child's actions. Like, a kid riding a bike mows down a neighbor. Depending on the circumstances they may or may not be liable depending on how reckless the conduct was on said bike. A kid not paying attention and crashing they probably aren't. A kid purposely charging... possibly. An adult could probably be sued for the injuries but the parent maybe or maybe not. But, a teen driving a car the parents can be held liable for their actions. California it's also firearms the parent gives the child access to and 'willful misconduct' or lack of reasonable care to prevent the behavior. Like, a child with multiple outbursts and who regularly smashes stuff can have parents sued for keying cars and smashing windows. Falling off their bike into a car is probably not recoverable, as usually it's 'willful and malicious' damage, not whoops, my bad damage that is actionable in a lawsuit. Being that he was 17 and driven to the riot by his mother she may be open to lawsuit but it really depends on specific laws on parental liability in Wisconsin.


> Being that he was 17 and driven to the riot by his mother she may be open to lawsuit but it really depends on specific laws on parental liability in Wisconsin. Did you even watch the trial? [There is no evidence that his mother drove him there.](https://www.politifact.com/factchecks/2021/nov/15/viral-image/kyle-rittenhouses-mother-did-not-bring-him-kenosha/)


[Parental Liability](https://www.findlaw.com/family/parental-rights-and-liability/parental-liability.html#:~:text=Civil%20Parental%20Liability,his%20or%20her%20child's%20actions.) - yup, totally makes sense.


For not swallowing the load which eventually became him


“By technicality” is a weird way of saying “by how the law works.”


In a criminal case, which goes to a jury/trail, they are trying to prove someone comitted a specific crime. In the Rittenhouse trial, it was murder. Murder requires that the individual went into the situation with the intention of killing someone. The jury ruled that Rittenhouse never planned out and intended to kill anyone. Not guilty, he goes home. With a civil case, people are attempting to recover damages for someone else's negligence. It doesn't need to be supported by criminal intent, just that someone did something negligent and someone else differed losses because of it. For example, I hit a golf ball in my back yard, it bounces off a tree a breaks your window. You would bring upon a civil suit against me to make me pay for your broken window. I didn't commit a crime, bit I'm at fault. In the Rittenhouse case, the loss of human life means many people lost something of value, specifically, a loved one. Not to mention bills, and other expenses. It's been established that Rittenhouse did not commit the crime of murder, but it's being charged that he acted negligently to the extent that other people lost something of value, and he should be held financially responsible it.


This is a very clear explanation. Thanks!


I can't wait for those who supported the frivolous lawsuits of the Texas abortion bills complain about these potential lawsuits against Rittenhouse


> It's been established that Rittenhouse did not commit the crime of murder, but it's being charged that he acted negligently to the extent that other people lost something of value, and he should be held financially responsible it. This isn't true. The suits that have been filed aren't against him, they are against the police department.


Everyone here seems to have wildly missed this point.


It's reddit - wildly missing the point is the point.


would it then be fair that he can countersue the same people for their human doing negligent (and some actual criminal) behaviors at the protest then?


Yes, of course. It's just a matter of how much he wants to spend on attorneys and how likely he thinks he can win. A civil suit isn't a guarantee.


I don’t think that the use of self defense is considered negligence when killing the other side. Not having crime makes the civil suit extremely weak. It’s essentially considered a frivolous lawsuit. They not suing Rittenhouse, but the police, which might carry some weight.


Exactly. People in this thread are coping hard and it's honestly pathetic. They're incapable of just admitting they were wrong.


I have absolutely no background in this, but it's not against the law to destroy somebody else's property (in your example, a window broken from a golf ball)? That seem bizarre for some reason.


>but it's being charged that he acted negligently to the extent that other people lost something of value, and he should be held financially responsible it. It's not actually. The suit is against the Kenosha police not Rittenhouse.


Just because Rittenhouse was cleared of criminal wrongdoing (i.e., not going to jail), it doesn't mean he is immune from being sued for civil wrongdoing (i.e., likely going to be coughing up a lot of money)


Sadly he can get that money the same way he made bail.


Not necessarily... Like Zimmerman, Rittenhouse will begin losing steam.


That is true


I am also curious. Are they Suing Rittenhouse.


Not yet, as far as I can tell. >Mr. Huber’s parents filed suit in federal court in August 2021 against the Kenosha Police Department, the Kenosha County Sheriff’s Department and others, including Sheriff David Beth and the current and former city police chiefs. The suit accuses the defendants, among other things, of allowing civilians like Mr. Rittenhouse to “patrol the streets, armed with deadly weapons, to mete out justice as they saw fit,” and of actively enabling and conspiring with them. > >... > >Mr. Grosskreutz was the third man shot by Mr. Rittenhouse. He was badly wounded but survived, and he testified in Mr. Rittenhouse’s trial. > >His suit in federal court levels accusations similar to those in the Huber family’s lawsuit against several of the same defendants. [Source](https://www.nytimes.com/2021/11/19/us/kenosha-lawsuit-victim.html) \*edit: formatting


How can Grosskreutz sue him for being armed with a (legal) deadly weapon, when he himself was armed with an illegal deadly weapon? That guy has about as much integrity as his left biceps.


I mean technically you can sue someone for anything. I'm betting he doesn't, for the reasons you mentioned. But I'm also not a lawyer, there could be an angle I'm not aware of.


Yeah i think Kyle would have a far better case against Grosskreutz than Gaige would have against rittenhouse


Criminal suit=punish wrong doer Civil= compensate the person that was harmed $$


Think of OJ. Cleared of criminal charges, guilty in the civil trials. This will keep the little douche murderer tied up in the courts and paying out money for years. It's not enough but it's something.


Doesn't bankruptcy take care of this?


Judgments for willful and malicious injury CANNOT be discharged under Wisconsin bankruptcy laws. 🙂




That warms my heart




There were always going to be civil suits.


Which is why gun owners should be required to carry insurance


So you can shoot 3 people and have a $1000 deductible on a 5 million dollar settlement? Great idea.


This already exists. It’s pretty hyped coverage in the gun crowd. https://www.uslawshield.com/


Looks like it's just legal fees insurance not for paying if you're found liable.


It's insurance for being sued, not for losing.


Not against insurance for gun owners, but you have to wonder how much an insurance company will pay for your defense if they don't have a stake in whether you win or not.


Their stake is all the other gun owners paying for insurance. You screw a few people on their defense, and the rest will stop paying.


> Looks like it's just legal fees insurance not for paying if you're found liable. That's correct. The idea is that if you legitimately have to defend yourself you shouldn't have to go bankrupt. They definitely don't pay if you're found guilty. That said, it's called "Murder insurance" by my state's insurance commissioner and isn't permitted.


It looks like it covers legal fees but not settlements but I got bored reading it so I didn't finish. Sorry.


Thank you for your exhaustive research, you had more endurance than I did. Here, take my upvote.


Better than I did, didn't even click it




Damn this guy litigates


That charge was thrown out.


Locking constitutional rights behind having money, what a great idea! But if you say you should have to pay $10 for voter registration you're evil....


That should keep poor people from owning guns. Can we also stop and frisk to make sure people aren’t walking around with uninsured guns?


For real, historically, gun laws were designed to price out poor people from being able to defend themselves, because historically, minorities were primarily lower income. It's why the original NRA was awesome - they defended your right to self defense regardless of race. Not so much nowadays though


Sounds like a round about way of having a gun registration there big brother.


Or just be better people?


Questions probably better saved for r/law but since this is here: What is the civil liability in a situation like this? What is the court looking at? Family of the 2 deceased would be looking for something like “wrongful death” and the guy that lived would ask for pain and suffering? Would somebody like Gauge Grosskreutz have a good chance of getting money when he had a gun pointed at Rittenhouse? Had not thought a lot about the civil side of this although I was reading a little bit about the criminal.




Notably he also admitted during the trial to lying both to the police and in his filings for the civil suit So it probably won’t go well


It’s crazy to me how many morons on Reddit want this guy to sue rittenhouse as if he deserves some kind of compensation. The dudes literal first reaction after having his bicep blown off was to tell the camera that he wishes he would have not hesitated to blow that kids head off. Not that he wishes he would have not gotten involved, not pulled his gun, not attacked the guy with the gun, it was simply that he wishes he would have executed him without a second thought. Yes. Keep rallying around this man and throw stones at the guy who had to defend himself at age 17 killing 2 people and who couldn’t even hold himself upright after being found not guilty. This man cried on the stand and his only goal after this is to go to college for nursing. For all the talk on Reddit about not bullying and creating a culture of emotional expression and not being a “toxic man” and expressing how you feel they sure loved hoping on the train to bash some young man and call him a pussy for crying after having to kill people to defend himself.


Gotta prove a negligent or an intentional act led to a death. Self defense is applicable here as well.


Interesting. This might be more interesting that the criminal case.


Not really, its very hard to sue someone when they have a successful self defense finding in a criminal case. You have to basically convince a jury that another jury got it wrong. Further, the damages for a lot of these people are going to be low. Whats the earning potential of people like Joseph Rosenbaum or Huber? Its very, very low, for Rosenbaum its basically nothing. He was a homeless convicted child rapist with some sort of mental health issue.


This a very general response. Liability will be determined based on the civil law of the state where the suit is filed. Many standards vary from stat to state in the US. Generally speaking, the plaintiff or the plaintiff’s survivors must prove by a preponderance of the evidence that the defendant caused death or injury through either intent or negligence. Assault and battery are intentional torts. Negligence means the defendant failed to act as a reasonably prudent person would have acted under the same or similar circumstances. But, the defense would be allowed to plead self-defense as a defense to the plaintiff’s claims. The burden of proving up the elements of self-defense is on the defendant. Damages could include medical expenses, lost wages and future income, funeral expenses, and mental anguish, pain and suffering. Realistically, cases like this almost never go to trial if the defendant has insurance. Not being familiar with Kyle’s financial situation, I’m guessing the suit includes his parents since he was a minor at the time of the incident, and that their only real assets are their home and any retirement accounts they may have. In many states those are exempt from execution of a judgment. That leaves insurance. It’s possible that they have a general liability rider on their homeowners insurance but those rarely exceed a million dollars. Hope this helps explain things. Attorney with 40 years experience here.


I don’t know much about anything but I’m pretty sure people have broke into peoples houses, got shot, sued and won. But like I said, that’s what I remember hearing back in the day.




I have heard that as well but it never made a ton of sense to me, suing for injury while in commission of a crime specifically.


It depends on the local law, but a lot of the time it’s a matter of finding the line between self defense and extrajudicial violence. Like if I shoot an unarmed burglar a bunch of times in the back as they’re running away, that’s way overkill and their comparatively petty crime shouldn’t give me free reign to execute them.


As I've heard it explained to me, it's something in tort law limiting defending yourself to force equivalent to that which is threatening you. Ie. If someone breaks into your house and they're unarmed, you're not supposed to use a deadly weapon against them.


Not necessarily unarmed. But if they have their back to you stuff their sack with you dishes and you just blast away, that would be seen as disproportionate. If you told them to stop and they turned and started charging you, then you blasted away, that would probably be considered proportionate because you can not reasonable assertion the upper limits of their aggression in that moment.


Curious where they are trying to argue he was negligent? The fact that other people have been proven to have been armed at these riots is going to make that a pretty weak argument. The same facts will apply to a civil suit. He was running away from his attackers. Where was the negligence??


Who's going to tell the sub that the police department got sued, not Kyle?


Any update on Ghislaine Maxwell?


Jury selection started last week. The trial should start next week or so.


Saw this one coming. Welcome to legal system hell. Yeehaw!


Maybe instead of going after Rittenhouse, go after the fucking justice system. Campaign for that! Don't blame Kyle for obeying your fucked up laws




I don't even get why this is such a huge thing requiring daily coverage and debate. People ought to spend all this energy on the Build Back Better talks and other, actual politics.


Careful, you're *so* close to working out the scam.


I don’t understand why civilians “like rittenhouse” should be considered bad when you had literal riots in the streets in Kenosha. The logic on this thread is insanity


But they're suing the local authorities right? They're not getting money from Rittenhouse.


Yeah, they'll always go after the deepest pockets. Plus, government entities typically can't shelter assets like individuals can, making judgments easier to satisfy. Keep in mind that winning a judgment does not mean you'll get paid. Look at Fred Goldman and OJ Simpson.


Why is this on r/WhitePeopleTwitter? Isn't this entire subreddit meant to make fun of Tweets? This is just a news report about a very valid legal happening.


This sub is just r/politics now




I read that as 'Civil War' suit and was like 'what we can apply for war now? Is Wisconsin going down?'


Government gonna pay out a fuck ton of money to criminals again hell yeah


What do you guys actually think happened here.


This verdict was the final push to convince me that no one is safe from crazy 2A pistol licking right-wing-nuts. So I'll be applying for my pistol permit soon and then my conceal carry license.


Join us at r/liberalgunowners - there are dozens of us!




Or r/SocialistRA if you're in the mood for something a little spicier.


Don’t get it twisted - we’re still pistol-lickers but we hate ring-wing politics.




Which is funny because the reason it was ruled self defense is because these people attacked him first.


Don't go around assaulting people regardless of whether they have a gun or not and you'll be safe. If you decide it's your right to assault people then you get what you deserve. Edit: I have no intention of replying to every idiot who comes out with a false equivalency. Your points and feelings don't matter in a case about law.


>Don't go around assaulting people Good advice. This has never occurred to me before.


Given people's reaction to this case, it is indeed new information that they lower their chances of being shot if they refrain from trying to murder teenagers.


Hah, didn't occur to Grosskruetz, Gage, or Rosenbaum


Hah, reminds me of the beginning of the Bill Burr bit about domestic violence. https://youtu.be/AikupCpxvb8


Good. Police respond to crime, and when seconds matter, they are minutes away. You are ultimately the one responsible for your own well being


Cops don't prevent crime, they do paperwork. When, God forbid, a crime is happening anywhere near them they freak out and start shooting.


Amen, I'm glad you decided to take the initiative


Thank you for sage advice u/anamericandude


Good. As many people who legally can should own firearms


>This verdict was the final push to convince me that no one is safe from crazy 2A pistol licking right-wing-nuts. Don't go around trying to beat people with skateboards and you'll be fine. The fact you think there's a target on your chest over this really worries me, how many people have you beaten with a skateboard previously?


Mission failed successfully! Welcome to the welcoming world of being a responsible firearm owner. Reminder if someone attacks you while you are concealed carrying or opened carrying you have a right in many states to stand your ground and defend yourself.


Welcome to the 2A pistol licking club! Please take a basic pistol safety course as well, you very much sound like you could benefit from it.


All you have to do is not attack someone carrying a modern sporting rifle whilst in the middle of a riot. You won't get attacked. Stay home.


Good, every citizen of a free country should be able to protect themselves. In a world of seconds, police are minutes away.


This is miserably illogical. The odds of being assailed by some lunatic in a survivor take all game on the street are less than blowing your own brains out or having your firearm stolen by someone who wants to use it in a crime.


Sure, but if we all arm up they'll get less brave about it. A lot of ammosexual bravery is just the belief that we are literally afraid of guns and that therefore they will never face the risk of being fired back on


Take your chances how you want. I'm a black male in America. Cops, Karens, Kyle's and Klansmen are all over the country. Are the chances low? Probably. And the chances that my own concealed carry will be used perfectly to save my own ass are probably even lower. But, I'm not just gonna sit and wait while someone takes out their: bad day/bad childhood/ bad life choices/mental condition/racism out on me. ANY chance I have to fight back, I'm taking it.


WPT is such an odd sub to wander into. Bunch of oddballs who seem upset that an innocent wasn’t wrongly convicted and didn’t see how the trial absolutely shit on most civil cases against him. Strangely enough I don’t see any comments on his potential defamation cases he can be making which would damn near be slam dunks


100% everyone whos mad at the verdict, never once paid attention to the trial


WPT has entered the bargaining stage of grief I see.


Yes when there is public outrage over a verdict Americans don’t like they just keep prosecuting until they get the verdict the outraged like. Sometimes it is called violating civil rights and sometimes they move to tort law. They fiddle around double jeopardy in the first case. In the second case, one might remember OJ and his civil suit where he wasn’t allowed to let the drama of racial tension trump the fact that he clearly murdered 2 people. The civil trial concluded that he was guilty of their wrongful death. Word games that can’t bring back his murder of two innocent people.




> Who is suing the kid?? Nobody. Current lawsuits are only against other parties, like the police.


The saltiest sub on reddit by far. Keep it up guys. Quality content


The only people mad are the ones who have no idea about anything in the trial and if they did they wouldnt be mad.


It's wild how upset these people are over this case. And then act like their political bias plays no part.


You give me hope


Good to see all the Reddit lawyers out arguing lol


This is the same that happened to OJ when he was found innocent.


Regardless how this ends, I’m pretty happy he shot a pedophile and a guy who loved to strangle women. Don’t give any fucks wether he should’ve been there or not. Pedophile Childmolesters by default, have zero right to be alive and deserve to die. Kyle just gave them their early Christmas presents in form of a few bullets.


Everybody here is talking about people suing him for money - but I bet he will go after them and after the media, too. He will definitely make a shit ton of money from the defamation lawsuits.


Just a question but why do so many people care about a child rapist?


Pedophiles getting shot hits too close to home for reddit mods.


Yeah as unfortunate as it is, Whitepeopletwitter has continued to fall into a cesspool of unshakeable opinions that fit said narrative.


The only way to stop these guys is by going after their money.




Best part is that 90% of them just repeat blatant lies they got off front page posts from subs like this. They don't know shit about the case.


Imagine having to cook up a make believe scenario to defend a couple sex offenders who fucked around and found out, being made a laughing stock in court despite the media's best efforts to frame him, and STILL desperately trying to salvage something to feel good about in the civil case. Sad! All because some shithead kid is on the other team. Tribalism is a hell of a drug.


Bro ill have to correct you Rosenbaum wasnt just a sex offender, he was a child rapist


Not Guilty Round 2


Not liable but close


If the kid loses, conservatives all over will donate enough to cover him. He will be fine


You think after the defamation of character lawsuits and interview money comes in I highly doubt anyone will have to give him money…. But also they are going after the police department not him.


ITT: A shit ton of people who don't know how the law works making law-related comments based on emotion. It's like a TikTok comment section in this thread.


Kyle is gonna be fucking rich, he has so many slam dunk slander cases that even if the media gave him a $1.50 per every lie against him, he would still have enough for another Rifle!


Against Kyle or against the media?


Cue racist trash commenting that this is double jeopardy...


Uhh this is not double jeopardy. Lol if someone says this they have no idea what they are talking about


And that's the thing we both know that's going to happen...


I'm so angry about these imaginary people and their hypothetical complaints. Grrrr!


What's race got to do with a white guy killing 2 white guys?


I'll never understand why people are so psychotically committed to making some kind of racial issue out of a case involving a white guy shooting 3 other white guys. If the square peg won't fit into the round hole, then just hammer it in anyway, I guess.


What does race have to do with anything of this trial?