17-year-old arrested in killing of 2 people in Kenosha

[namedpipes]

Really big cousin or really small piano?

Regular sized cousin, full sized piano, but it might only have been a piece of the piano. We were dismembering it for disposal, using sledgehammers.

 

[bfm]

Regular sized cousin, full sized piano, but it might only have been a piece of the piano. We were dismembering it for disposal, using sledgehammers.

Got it.

 

[Kevin_NH]

There are some states that i think cockblock civil suits after an SD acquittal... but i forget which ones.

Each handles it a bit differently.

A person who uses force in self-protection or in the protection of other persons pursuant to RSA 627:4, in the protection of premises and property pursuant to RSA 627:7 and 627:8, in law enforcement pursuant to RSA 627:5, or in the care or welfare of a minor pursuant to RSA 627:6, is justified in using such force and shall be immune from civil liability for personal injuries sustained by a perpetrator which were caused by the acts or omissions of the person as a result of the use of force. In a civil action initiated by or on behalf of a perpetrator against the person, the court shall award the person reasonable attorney's fees, and costs, including but not limited to, expert witness fees, court costs, and compensation for loss of income.

Wisconsin, on the other hand, is weird.

 

[clampett]

As far as our Monday night quarterbacking is concerned, that's just life...

Monday morning

 

[namedpipes]

Monday morning

I flunked sports in high school :'(

 

[Oley]

I'm OK with civil suits of this nature if criminal trials were not held. Personally I think if there is a criminal trial, civil cases should be prohibited after an innocent verdict.

This is de facto double jeopardy.

There are many cases where everyone would be better off just having a civil suit. People get excited and bloodthirsty. But, what does a criminal homicide trial (say negligent or involuntary manslaughter) do to a defendant? At best, bankrupt them many times over. If they are convicted, maybe jail time for a bit, then leave them with a huge uphill battle for future meaningful employment. It ensures they won’t have a dime that can be recovered by the family of the deceased. Skip the criminal, sue them, and, if the death was truly wrongful, make them (or an insurance company) literally pay you for the rest of your life and allow them to keep the ability to do so. Most people would spend the rest of their life making payments on a million+ dollar judgement.

 

[hunt4riches]

I'm OK with civil suits of this nature if criminal trials were not held. Personally I think if there is a criminal trial, civil cases should be prohibited after an innocent verdict.

This is de facto double jeopardy.

I used to share that sentiment, but don't forget a criminal trial is to see if a crime has been committed. It is possible for a non-crime event to result in damages. For example: someone is speeding. Let's say it was actually 84 in 55. There is a crash, and the victim dies. A criminal trial may take place for any number of charges. If evidence is insufficient that the speed and operation of the vehicle were criminal in nature, that does not void any claims of damages due to the victim and/or the victim's estate. Now, I think the argument you are trying to make, is when a killing is done in self defense and the court rules accordingly, there should be NO grounds whatsoever for a civil claim to be made. The situation becomes "if you do nothing, I kill you, but if you kill me or injure me in an attempt to prevent this, you'll be bankrupted". The result is an assailant draws someone's name out of a hat and their life is ruined either actually or financially, and there is no recourse for the victim. This is a violation of the victim's 4th amendment rights. If anything, Kyle should sue the estate for said violations of his rights.

 

[allen-1]

I flunked sports in high school :'(

Before or after getting hit in the head with a piano?

 

[xtry51]

I used to share that sentiment, but don't forget a criminal trial is to see if a crime has been committed. It is possible for a non-crime event to result in damages. For example: someone is speeding. Let's say it was actually 84 in 55. There is a crash, and the victim dies. A criminal trial may take place for any number of charges. If evidence is insufficient that the speed and operation of the vehicle were criminal in nature, that does not void any claims of damages due to the victim and/or the victim's estate. Now, I think the argument you are trying to make, is when a killing is done in self defense and the court rules accordingly, there should be NO grounds whatsoever for a civil claim to be made. The situation becomes "if you do nothing, I kill you, but if you kill me or injure me in an attempt to prevent this, you'll be bankrupted". The result is an assailant draws someone's name out of a hat and their life is ruined either actually or financially, and there is no recourse for the victim. This is a violation of the victim's 4th amendment rights. If anything, Kyle should sue the estate for said violations of his rights.

Yes, I agree with this.

 

[Hoover]

None of us know what happened in Memphis. Let the investigation proceed, and let the justice system work. Then made a determination of what went down.
Even though the left wants the US to turn into a third world hole, we still have a system where people charged are innocent until proven guilty.

We pretty much knew everything in Kenosha the day after because of the videos and same with Memphis. They deserve a trial but I don’t see how they could possibly justify their use of force.

 

[Buck F]

There are many cases where everyone would be better off just having a civil suit. People get excited and bloodthirsty. But, what does a criminal homicide trial (say negligent or involuntary manslaughter) do to a defendant? At best, bankrupt them many times over. If they are convicted, maybe jail time for a bit, then leave them with a huge uphill battle for future meaningful employment. It ensures they won’t have a dime that can be recovered by the family of the deceased. Skip the criminal, sue them, and, if the death was truly wrongful, make them (or an insurance company) literally pay you for the rest of your life and allow them to keep the ability to do so. Most people would spend the rest of their life making payments on a million+ dollar judgement.

If the person doesn't have any assets and there isn't an insurance company to pay the judgment they usually walk out of the courtroom and no one ever ends up getting a dime. Granted, the person will have the judgment hanging over their head which will screw their credit, affect their ability to do things like buy a house, etc. but often we're talking about people without much of a financial future anyway.

 

[Hoover]

I'm OK with civil suits of this nature if criminal trials were not held. Personally I think if there is a criminal trial, civil cases should be prohibited after an innocent verdict.

This is de facto double jeopardy.

Civil and criminal are completely different courts. The standard of proof in criminal is beyond a reasonable doubt (say 90% if you want to put a number on it) civil is 50.1%, a preponderance of the evidence. In civil cases the defendant cannot refuse to testify. The rules of evidence are also very different. In a civil case Anthony Hubers violent criminal history will be allowed, in a criminal case it’s only allowed if the defendant knew of the criminal history.

And a criminal case finds a person not guilty which only means the prosecution did not meet its burden of proof, it doesn’t mean the person is innocent.


Now if you want to object to the use of federal court to go after people who were found not guilty in state court or to pile another case on, I’m with you. The charges in federal court are usually quite redundant and the feds almost always use the federal charges in a highly selective, political way. If George Floyd was white or breonna Taylor, etc they’d never bring federal charges. But those dead people are black and the defendants white or non black so the political DOJ files charges.

 

[Hoover]

It's a civil suit, so nowhere near the potential for a media circus like the criminal case.
Given the minimal interaction between the "armed individuals" and law enforcement (the real target of the suit, with deeper pockets, is Kenosha County and the City of Kenosha) proving conspiracy will be a real stretch.

As for wrongful death, they'll just pull up this still image again:

There were a few jurors who spoke after the criminal case and if I remember correctly the jury found Rittenhouse not guilty on the Huber case first and quickly. The charge they spent the most time on was the child rapist rosenbaum. Rosenbaum was shot 4 times and the shots were to the upper back and exiting lower back. The claim of rosenbaum diving for the gun or not a threat requiring deadly force was more debatable than the others, also the video wasn’t nearly as good

 

[namedpipes]

Before or after getting hit in the head with a piano?

LONG before. The Piano assault was in 2020

 

[Hoover]

I used to share that sentiment, but don't forget a criminal trial is to see if a crime has been committed. It is possible for a non-crime event to result in damages. For example: someone is speeding. Let's say it was actually 84 in 55. There is a crash, and the victim dies. A criminal trial may take place for any number of charges. If evidence is insufficient that the speed and operation of the vehicle were criminal in nature, that does not void any claims of damages due to the victim and/or the victim's estate. Now, I think the argument you are trying to make, is when a killing is done in self defense and the court rules accordingly, there should be NO grounds whatsoever for a civil claim to be made. The situation becomes "if you do nothing, I kill you, but if you kill me or injure me in an attempt to prevent this, you'll be bankrupted". The result is an assailant draws someone's name out of a hat and their life is ruined either actually or financially, and there is no recourse for the victim. This is a violation of the victim's 4th amendment rights. If anything, Kyle should sue the estate for said violations of his rights.

I Kyle may cross file and sue Hubers estate but there isn’t a real reason to do that since Huber had no money and he’s dead no so he’ll never earn money. It would cost Rittenhouse more money for his lawyers to research and t in court and even if he wins he can’t collect anything from a broke dead guy.

 

[namedpipes]

... This is a violation of the victim's 4th amendment rights. If anything, Kyle should sue the estate for said violations of his rights.

The estate of a 26 year old "skate boarder" is not likely to offer much of a return, even if the news media permits the lawsuit to win.

 

[hunt4riches]

I Kyle may cross file and sue Hubers estate but there isn’t a real reason to do that since Huber had no money and he’s dead no so he’ll never earn money. It would cost Rittenhouse more money for his lawyers to research and t in court and even if he wins he can’t collect anything from a broke dead guy.

let the two multi-million dollar judgements cancel out instead of the big one hanging over his head if he loses

 

[Hoover]

let the two multi-million dollar judgements cancel out instead of the big one hanging over his head if he loses

I don’t think he’ll lose so there won’t be a judgement against him. Hubers father is a nut, he was on the video conference for Rittenhouses bail hearing and ranted and gave the camera the finger.

 

[42!]

I don’t think he’ll lose so there won’t be a judgement against him. Hubers father is a nut, he was on the video conference for Rittenhouses bail hearing and ranted and gave the camera the finger.

PD is named first, they'll offer a settlement and it will be accepted. This is all about a settlement with the city. Quick easy money, would cost more to defend.

 

[Matt_SERE]

PD is named first, they'll offer a settlement and it will be accepted. This is all about a settlement with the city. Quick easy money, would cost more to defend.

I agree, they have to name Rittenhouse, or they don't have a 'conspiracy'. Mr Huber's looking for some insurance/tax funded payout.

 

[Tartakovsky]

It's a civil suit, so nowhere near the potential for a media circus like the criminal case.
Given the minimal interaction between the "armed individuals" and law enforcement (the real target of the suit, with deeper pockets, is Kenosha County and the City of Kenosha) proving conspiracy will be a real stretch.

As for wrongful death, they'll just pull up this still image again:

Schrodinger’s Huber

 

[Hoover]

PD is named first, they'll offer a settlement and it will be accepted. This is all about a settlement with the city. Quick easy money, would cost more to defend.

Huber was a white felon, there isn’t a political benefit to settle.

 

[Junior314]

Forgot how good the memes were.

The dankest of Rittenhouse memes...

​

 

[groundscrapers]

I'm OK with civil suits of this nature if criminal trials were not held. Personally I think if there is a criminal trial, civil cases should be prohibited after an innocent verdict.

This is de facto double jeopardy.

thats not how civil cases work.

 

[42!]

Huber was a white felon, there isn’t a political benefit to settle.

Doesn't have to be political, it's cheaper to settle than fight and there is no risk of losing.

 

[Hoover]

Doesn't have to be political, it's cheaper to settle than fight and there is no risk of losing.

I seriously doubt they’ll settle. Hubers father is after rittenhouse more than anyone

 

[42!]

I seriously doubt they’ll settle. Hubers father is after rittenhouse more than anyone

So now we wait and see

 

[namedpipes]

I don’t think he’ll lose so there won’t be a judgement against him. Hubers father is a nut, he was on the video conference for Rittenhouses bail hearing and ranted and gave the camera the finger.

Huber ALREADY won.

Somebody will see that the lawyers are paid and Mr Huber will acquire a new car or maybe even a house.

Kyle might be able get donors to pay for his defense...

The stress and time sink of defending himself?


I wonder what political party would most benefit by an extended culture war in the courts and the media, with an impending presidential election?

 

[Hoover]

Huber ALREADY won.

Somebody will see that the lawyers are paid and Mr Huber will acquire a new car or maybe even a house.

Kyle might be able get donors to pay for his defense...

The stress and time sink of defending himself?


I wonder what political party would most benefit by an extended race war in the courts and the media, with an impending presidential election?

Race war? Each shot was white. No one in the media cares about a civil case against Rittenhouse which he will very like win.

If you think Hubers nutcase father will take a car or something, you really don’t know him. Hubers father is a wacko, when he loses the civil case he’ll still be on some moronic mission to disprove the reality his kid died because of his actions. He’s on a kamikaze mission, he doesn’t want a car or house.


View: https://youtu.be/Vm2zwQFJGDo



View: https://youtu.be/h4h_8KgxRNk




In the criminal trial the first charge the jury acquitted rittenhouse on was the Huber charge even though that wasn’t the first count. The jurors believed that was self defense very quickly and decided it unanimously within the first few hours of deliberations. And in the criminal trial NONE of Hubers violent past was allowed in, it will be allowed in the civil case. Huber had a history and several convictions for violent assaults.

 

[Kevin_NH]

Huber ALREADY won.

Other than a federal judge allowing the case to proceed, how has John Huber "won"?