comment: >
  
  The unsafe situation was CAUSED by the dead people.   That's why they're dead and he's not in prison.
  The fact that they're dead is because they attacked a guy with a gun.   Who thought that was a good idea?
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. >
  
  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 >
  
  The standard for criminal cases is “reasonable doubt”. In civil cases it’s “preponderance of evidence”. Huge difference. >
  
  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 >
  
  How would that play out in a case like this? There is video. The act isn’t in question at all.
  Edit to my more clear: Are you saying that there is a lower barrier to consider the act murder vs self defense? Or Ritternhouse would need a higher threshold for proving a fear for his life? It seems like the whole thing comes down to proving thoughts of the people involved at the time more than disputing anything probable. >
  
  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. >
  
  Isn't the counter argument that he was actively driven to the scene? It's not like he suddenly found himself in a "warzone" and had to defend himself. >
  
  "I went looking for a fight, and then had to defend myself, your honor"
  This whole case is fucking stupid. >
  
  Harlon Carter killed a boy this exact way, got away with it and went on to take over the NRA and militarize the Border Patrol which caught on and started the militarization of the police. >
  
  Had no idea this was a thing, just looked it up and yeah....
  "On March 3, 1931, 17-year-old Carter shot and killed 15-year-old Ramón Casiano.[6] Carter believed that Casiano had information about the theft of his family's car, and, carrying a shotgun, he pointed it at Casiano and demanded that he return to the Carter home to submit to questioning. When Casiano refused Carter fatally shot him.[6] No evidence tying Casiano with the car incident was ever found.[6] He was convicted of murder, but the conviction was overturned by the Texas Court of Appeals, which found that the judge in the case had issued incorrect jury instructions regarding laws related to self-defense."
  Fucking incredible. When it got brought to light decades later he denied it even existed. Always the same song and dance with these people. >
  
  So they actually convicted a white guy for the murder of a non-white guy in 1930s Texas. That means he pretty much must have done it in front of Sunday service on national radio while writing a signed and notarized confession.
  And then the court just overturned it anyway lmao. >
  
  A lot of America is pretty backwards. Texas is a planet in a different universe called Backwards. >
  
  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. >
  
  This ⬆️ >
  
  What the hell is going on in these comments. >
  
  People equating their feelings with facts. >
  
  ahhh yes… a reddit staple. >
  
  "Fuck your facts! I mean... ah, whatever..." >
  
  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. >
  
  Or he knows it, and is using the media tour to solicit donations. >
  
  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. >
  
  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" >
  
  What ever happened to him? I haven't heard of him since Trump got elected? I guess the right got tired of him? >
  
  I’d go look it up but I don’t want the search engines to notice an uptick in searches for him. May he rest in relative obscurity. >
  
  Same reason I didn't want to. >
  
  He resurfaced riding Nick Fuentes' coat tails during the Kanye Nazi meltdown. >
  
  They are both being paid to help on Kanye’s presidential campaign >
  
  The Three Musketeers really feel from grace hard, huh... >
  
  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. >
  
  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. >
  
  I take it this is a third party Reddit app? Love to know which one >
  
  RiF does it. Probably more as well. Feels like the official app has the fewest features sometimes. >
  
  The official app also has the worst video player >
  
  Get RiF. >
  
  Reddit has the worst armchair lawyers. >
  
  Oh but its an amusing read is it not? Social justice thoughts vs moral speak and reddit legalese.. >
  
  Written by middle schoolers >
  
  Using crayons in a big echo chamber... >
  
  Which flavor is your favorite? Mine's blue.
  Mmmm, blue.... >
  
  Im a glue kind of guy myself.. >
  
  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. >
  
  Unless they have some kind of evidence we haven't seen, this isn't going very far. >
  
  "conspired with law enforcement to cause harm to protestors."
  Ahhhh... Kinda shot the lawsuit in the foot going for that angle. >
  
  Wasn't Huber the guy who attempted to clock him with a skateboard on the trucks side? I don't know how that's not going to end in anything other than Kyle winning the suit for self defense :/ >
  
  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. >
  
  This comment section should be calm and civil. >
  
  Yeah. It'll be "mostly peaceful". >
  
  I’m actually surprised it hasn’t been locked. >
  
  
  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. >
  
  Classic Reddit post. All of the hate mongering paired with minuscule due diligence. >
  
  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. >
  
  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. >
  
  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 >
  
  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. >
  
  I legit thought kenosha was a star wars planet name. >
  
  You touched my tattooweenie >
  
  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. >
  
  Exactly. The morality of his actions can be debated but it’s a pretty cut and dry case of self defense. >
  
  "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. >
  
  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. >
  
  
  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. >
  
  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. >
  
  ITT: Redditors doing their absolute damndest to prove that right-wingers do not have a monopoly on being absolute fucking morons. >
  
  Alternative title: ITT Redditors proving they didn't even click on the article and only read the title of the reddit post >
  
  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 >
  
  I never got the whole "crossed state lines" bit. Kenosha is less than 5 miles away from the border >
  
  As a non-American, I don't even get why that's a big deal. >
  
  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. >
  
  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. >
  
  Was it against the law if they did know his age? >
  
  If my memory is correct, he could not legally own a gun (which he didn't), but he could legally possess/carry it. >
  
  There is a clear exception for rifles over 16 inches.   His was.
  It was legally carried.  
  However, the state laws are VERY poorly written and this exception may not have been intended, but it was the law and the judge got it right.   Politicians need to work on writing better laws if they meant something other than what they wrote. >
  
  I agree, I've been going through them and have been debating if they were written so poorly intentionally or if the author was just a functioning idiot. With politicians, it's hard to tell.  
  But it looks like, as a 17 YO, he could legally carry the rifle as long as he had no intent on harming people with it. In law, Intent of the actor is every bit as important as the law/ crime itself. Criminally,They had to prove he went there with the plan to intentionally harm others. Civilly, they more or less just have to show that him being there with that gun created a situation where his actions harmed others. Huge difference.  
  But with the Police side they have to show the 2 conspired for the events to happen or that by the police not taking the weapon from him, they non-verbally gave him the opportunity to harm others. That makes the Civil case much more difficult. >
  
  Ehh, you're missing something.  You also have to prove that Rittenhouse was the one responsible for any of the 3 shootings.  
  I mean, sure, that SOUNDS easy, he squeezed the trigger and 2 guys died and a third was maimed, but there's more to being responsible than being the hand that did the damage.
  The latter 2, the guy with the skateboard and the dude with the handgun, would be super tough to to prove that Rittenhouse was responsible because there's clear video of those 2 jokers initiating attacks on Rittenhouse while he's retreating, which is a rather obvious de-escalation tactic.
  It's be pretty hard to prove that Rittenhouse is responsible if he's attempting to de-escalate and the guys he shot were not.
  Rosenbaum's video is much less clear, there might be something there, but the only virtue of the case is its lack of clarity which doesn't play in the plaintiff's favor.  If Rittenhouse made any effort to evade or de-escalate the confrontation, and that can be proven, then making a case that Rittenhouse is responsible for any of the 3 incidents at all is going to be tough.
  I'm not sure what the platiff's counsel has to work with, other than general public anger that Rittenhouse wasn't punished in criminal court.  Certainly I see a huge gulf between the evidence I see and the evidence I'd expect to see before Id' expect a court to rule Rittenhouse liable. >
  
  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 >
  
  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 >
  
  He learned that from all of our politicians. >
  
  Like tilling a field, like massaging in an idea, like making the snow sit a certain way...there must be a word for it.... >
  
  
  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. >
  
  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. >
  
  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 >
  
  They’ve got to have the worst win/loss record of any legal theory ever. >
  
  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" >
  
  Idk about better - but almost certainly not worse. >
  
  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. >
  
  I can bet almost any judge on the bench, regardless of political affiliation, probably has a field day with “Sovereign Citizens”. >
  
  Most of the legal responses I’ve seen are more exasperated at this yahoo for wasting their time.  Most are quite terse and brief, and heavily reference all the other times this shit has struck out. >
  
  Ah damn. I need some schadenfreude in the form of videos of judges verbally slapping “sovereign citizens”.
  But not if it’s just exasperation. >
  
  Mr. Huber will lose that civil suit as well. Since video evidence showed his son attacking Rittenhouse a wrongful death suit won’t get anywhere except the Father hoping Rittenhouse settles. >
  
  Anyone who has thoroughly reviewed all the details of the case... knows. 
  Reading a few news articles from slanted sources is not the equivalent of that. >
  
  All the details of the case would make it hard to prove that Rittenhouse is even civilly responsible for any of the 3 shootings.  How do you prove that Rittenhouse is responsible for the deaths of any of Rosenbaum, Huber, and pistol dude when each incident was clearly instigated by the other person and we have a pattern of de-escalatory efforts by Rittenhouse against at least the last 2 dudes? >
  
  
  alleged that Rittenhouse, who was 17 at the time of the shootings, conspired with law enforcement to cause harm to protestors.
  
  What? Talk about a curve ball out of nowhere. Law enforcement wasn't even around them. >
  
  They will probably lose. They probably should too in my opinion based on the video >
  
  I’m as liberal as they come and saw the video on reddit the night it happened. I feel like anyone who watches the video will see that there is no case against him. Dude is a fucking idiot and I hate having to defend him but everyone else that night was also a fucking idiot. I really don’t understand the media circus around him and honestly blame the liberal side for making this guy famous. Fox/conservative media are parading this guy only because the liberal side wants to punish him so bad when the video obviously clears him. Again he’s still a shithead and fuck him but this is what happens when dumbass shitheads from opposite sides argue.
  Edit: Just wanna add for any conservatives upvoting. Fuck Donald Trump and any fascists supporting his rhetoric. If you love this country then you should help protect democracy. >
  
  This is exactly it. Right wingers jump on anything that ‘triggers the libs’ even when it doesn’t (think Let’s go Brandon)
  The fact that this ACTUALLY DOES trigger the libs and Rittenhouse does actually happen to be not guilty, it’s like gold for the right. >
  
  its gold for everyone capable of critical thought. >
  
  Everyone on here is so delusional. It’s alleging he conspired with law enforcement and officials to harm protestors. This is going to get thrown out. >
  
  I can't wait to see half of your reactions when he also wins the civil suits. >
  
  You won’t because the post will be downvoted to oblivion and catch little to no attention lol >
  
  Cash grab.  Huber was a piece of shit.  Hes the one hitting Rittenhouse with a skateboard and trying to take his gun.  Picture perfect self-defense Rittenhouse.
  The criminal trail was a farse.  This will be too. >
  
  He also never would have died if not for one of his fellow rioters (Rosenbaum) fresh out of mental treatment had not chased him down and threatened to kill him for putting out a trash can fire. >
  
  He wouldn’t have died if he didn’t attack a man running away with a skateboard….