comment: >
  
  Double jeopardy only applies to criminal cases, and even then, you can be tried by the state government and federal government separately for the same crime. 
  You can be found liable in civil court for wrongful death even if you are acquitted in criminal court (see OJ Simpson) because the burden of proof is lower, and the elements of the tort of wrongful death are likely different than the elements of criminal murder
context: 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. >
  
  Hijacking top comment:
  Actually, reading the article doesn't really tell you the situation.
  Here is the complaint.* 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. >
  
  Ok so I understand that but why would Rittenhouse be a defendant in this case, not a witness involved? He has already been found not guilty of criminal charges and the negligence would be on the part of the local governments encouragement of these acts. If he had not been tried yet I can see a reason as to why he would be a defendant, but because of the innocent verdict wouldn’t that render his end of it null? 
  I’m confused, clarifications as to why he is relevant and not under double jeopardy protection would be helpful.