comment: >
  
  Using crayons in a big echo chamber...
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