Kyle Rittenhouse, accused multi-murderer from Kenosha BLM shooting

[Segnosaur]

Originally Posted by Wildy

Quote:

wonder, if this goes to court will they allow evidence that was not permitted in the criminal trial?

One of the "questionable" aspects about the criminal trial is that the judge did not allow a video of Rittenhouse talking about shooting people coming out of a store because he thought they were "looting"

I doubt it. The reason why it wasn't allowed in, and was forcefully explained during the trial when Binger tried to introduce it, was because there wasn't any relevance to the case at hand. You'd have to explain how Rittenhouse talking **** about shooting "looters" is relevant in the death of someone who wasn't doing any looting.

Because it shows a willingness/eagerness of Rittenhouse to kill people who were not threatening him. (Which challenges the idea that he was "only" acting in self defense.) It helps establish motive/state of mind.

It was the judgement of the criminal trial judge that the video "wasn't relevant". But judges can have differing views, and there is no guarantee that the judge in a civil case will feel the same way. They may decide to allow it to be shown, and leave it up to the jury to decide if it is relevant.

Quote:

We're also looking at a lower standard of evidence here since this is a civil trial. Would you really need to go to the effort of getting this video in as evidence when you've got a whole criminal trial with some pretty solid evidence that you can draw from?

Rittenhouse talking about shooting people "just because" would be a pretty powerful piece of evidence. If I were the prosecutor I would fight like hell to try to get it into evidence.

"I was attacked and just defending myself". "Here's a video of you talking about shooting unarmed people who weren't attacking you".

Quote:

I suspect that Rittenhouse may only really be in this suit in order for Huber's family to get better evidence to show the negligence of the government in this.

Give the fact that Rittenhouse was the one that actually pulled the trigger, I don't see why the Huber family would not want to see Rittenhouse actually suffer the consequences of his actions.

[Wildy]

Originally Posted by Segnosaur

He was defending himself because of a situation that he himself created. He wasn't sitting at home watching TV when he was attacked, and bravely grabbed the first thing he had available to defend himself. He deliberately purchased a gun (an item that many/most people recognize is a dangerous item that has the ability to kill) and put himself in an area where confrontation was extremely likely.

That doesn't answer the question I asked. Unless I'm supposed to read an implied "yes" to one of the two options I asked.

Which seems to suggest that you have a far narrower interpretation of "self-defence" than any legal code I can think of.

[Segnosaur]

Originally Posted by Wildy

Quote:

He was defending himself because of a situation that he himself created. He wasn't sitting at home watching TV when he was attacked, and bravely grabbed the first thing he had available to defend himself. He deliberately purchased a gun (an item that many/most people recognize is a dangerous item that has the ability to kill) and put himself in an area where confrontation was extremely likely.

That doesn't answer the question I asked. Unless I'm supposed to read an implied "yes" to one of the two options I asked.

He should have picked a 3rd option (one you didn't mention)... and just stayed home. In that case he would never been under any "threat". Wouldn't have had a need to kill people "in self defense".

[Wildy]

Originally Posted by Segnosaur

Because it shows a willingness/eagerness of Rittenhouse to kill people who were not threatening him. (Which challenges the idea that he was "only" acting in self defense.) It helps establish motive/state of mind.

It was the judgement of the criminal trial judge that the video "wasn't relevant". But judges can have differing views, and there is no guarantee that the judge in a civil case will feel the same way. They may decide to allow it to be shown, and leave it up to the jury to decide if it is relevant.


Rittenhouse talking about shooting people "just because" would be a pretty powerful piece of evidence. If I were the prosecutor I would fight like hell to try to get it into evidence.

"I was attacked and just defending myself". "Here's a video of you talking about shooting unarmed people who weren't attacking you".

How would this video be relevant in the case of Huber?

I may as well ask this as more of an aside, but did Rittenhouse shoot any unarmed people who weren't attacking him?

Quote:

Give the fact that Rittenhouse was the one that actually pulled the trigger, I don't see why the Huber family would not want to see Rittenhouse actually suffer the consequences of his actions.

And good luck with that considering that there's plenty of video footage of Huber attacking Rittenhouse before he was shot.

[Thermal]

Kyle Rittenhouse. The gift that keeps on giving.

I've had people come at me harder than Rosenbaum or Huber came after that precious princess. Yet here I am, alive and well. The only reason there were dead bodies is because Kyle had prepared himself to kill instead of preparing to avoid unecessary conflict. That's the most cowardly justification imaginable.

[Wildy]

Originally Posted by Segnosaur

He should have picked a 3rd option (one you didn't mention)... and just stayed home. In that case he would never been under any "threat". Wouldn't have had a need to kill people "in self defense".

I didn't mention the "third option" because it's irrelevant. But if you're saying that the success of the civil case should be based on that, then clearly Rittenhouse isn't responsible for the wrongful death of Huber because Huber could have just stayed home. In that case he would have never tried to play hero by using a skateboard to try and bash the brains in of someone who was armed with a gun.

In fact let's take this even further. Since we now know that Huber is at fault for having not stayed home, that means that his estate should be held responsible for the injuries that Grosskreutz sustained, because by not staying home and instead getting himself killed he created the circumstances that led to Grosskreutz being disarmed by Rittenhouse.

[Segnosaur]

Originally Posted by Wildy

How would this video be relevant in the case of Huber?

I thought I pretty much explained it.

Rittenhouse deliberately put himself in a situation where he might have to kill people. He was not forced to do so. And his attackers did not track him down in his home. His willingness to shoot people coming out of a store suggests his killing people was less a case of "I'm an innocent person just trying to defend myself" and more a case of "I'm looking for trouble so I will put myself in a situation where I can play cowboy".

Quote:

I may as well ask this as more of an aside, but did Rittenhouse shoot any unarmed people who weren't attacking him?

I might also ask... how many unarmed people did Huber "attack" before he came across Rittenhouse?

Not sure if you understand this, but guns are dangerous. They fire these things called bullets which can kill people at great distances. You might actually be shocked to hear that there have actually been cases where people have engaged in mass shootings.

Rittenhouse had one of these gun things during the riots. And we have seen at least one picture of him carrying this gun thing in his hands (as opposed to slung over his shoulder). Not sure about you, but if I saw someone in that situation, I would be at least a little concerned that they are not just there to do some sightseeing.

You seem to be implying that Huber's attack was just some random assault, but Rittenhouse's decision to open-carry can and should be seen as a danger itself.

[Suddenly]

Originally Posted by Wildy

Which seems to suggest that you have a far narrower interpretation of "self-defence" than any legal code I can think of.

It's a civil case, not a criminal case. There are huge differences and his negligence/recklessness in creating a situation by bringing a gun into a civil disturbance is way more significant in a civil case because there isn't the same requirement of criminal intent as in a criminal case.

They are in a whole different ballgame here. A whole different sport, really.

[plague311]

Originally Posted by Wildy

We're back to this again huh? It didn't matter in the criminal trial and I doubt it's going to matter in the civil one as well.

Duly noted. Doesn't mean much to me unless you have qualifications that would give weight to your doubts.

Originally Posted by Wildy

One of the legal questions in this suit will be whether Rittenhouse's actions led to the wrongful death of Huber. We all know Rittenhouse was responsible for Huber's death, even he says so, the jury will have to decide whether Rittenhouse killing a man who was trying to bash his skull in with a skateboard was a wrongful death or not. You seem to think that the answer to this question is "yes" based on the fact Rittenhouse was violating a curfew order, which seems nonsensical to me.

You realize that, unlike a criminal trial, they don't have to say "yes or no", right? They can assign varying degrees of responsibility. You don't seem to know much about civil trials. Have you ever been through one yourself? They can say that Huber contributed to his death, as well as Rittenhouse, and the PD, and insert_defendant_here. No one put Rittenhouse in the middle of that city armed with a gun. In fact, it turned out during the trial that no one asked him to be in that city, or at that car lot, at all. He did that himself.

Originally Posted by Wildy

If that were the case then Huber, who was violating the same order, can't have been killed wrongfully because he was somewhere he wasn't legally allowed to be and if he hadn't been there then he wouldn't have attacked Rittenhouse and gotten himself killed for it.

Undoubtedly Huber contributed to his own demise. I'm not arguing with you there. I'm saying if you think Rittenhouse doesn't hold any responsibility, then we'll have to disagree.

Originally Posted by Segnosaur

He was defending himself because of a situation that he himself created. He wasn't sitting at home watching TV when he was attacked, and bravely grabbed the first thing he had available to defend himself. He deliberately purchased a gun (an item that many/most people recognize is a dangerous item that has the ability to kill) and put himself in an area where confrontation was extremely likely.

Oh, that's another thing. He didn't even purchase the gun. It was a straw purchase. He was carrying an illegally obtained weapon as well.

[Segnosaur]

Originally Posted by Wildy

Quote:

He should have picked a 3rd option (one you didn't mention)... and just stayed home. In that case he would never been under any "threat". Wouldn't have had a need to kill people "in self defense".

I didn't mention the "third option" because it's irrelevant.

Really? You mean the attack happened in Rittenhouse's home? I did not know that.

Quote:

But if you're saying that the success of the civil case should be based on that, then clearly Rittenhouse isn't responsible for the wrongful death of Huber because Huber could have just stayed home.

Here is the difference between Rittenhouse and Huber.

The majority of BLM protests have been peaceful. When there has been crime it has usually been in the form of vandalism (and until Rittenhouse decided to play cowboy, gunfights were not exactly a major occurrence.) A rational person would assume they could attend the protests without fear of being subject to violence. Huber could assume he would be safe.

Rittenhouse escalated the situation. He brought a gun and decided to open-carry at a time when nobody else seemed to be doing so. Show up at an event where you are the only one carrying a gun, hold it in a way where you can easily point it at someone, and people are going to react.

[Wildy]

Originally Posted by plague311

Duly noted. Doesn't mean much to me unless you have qualifications that would give weight to your doubts.

I must have missed the notice saying that I need to provide proof that I hold some form of legal qualification in order to post in this subforum. Perhaps I should check my messages to see if I missed the request from the mods?

Quote:

You realize that, unlike a criminal trial, they don't have to say "yes or no", right? They can assign varying degrees of responsibility. You don't seem to know much about civil trials. Have you ever been through one yourself?

I will admit that my knowledge of US civil trials is lacking, since it's mostly based around stupid internet lawsuits that never get to the trial stage or are proper cases where there was a yes/no question between single parties.

Quote:

They can say that Huber contributed to his death, as well as Rittenhouse, and the PD, and insert_defendant_here.

But contributing to a death does not necessarily make that death wrongful. I may as well ask, are you talking about comparative negligence here or something else?

Or is this simply that you can find for/against multiple defendants on the same allegation?

Quote:

No one put Rittenhouse in the middle of that city armed with a gun. In fact, it turned out during the trial that no one asked him to be in that city, or at that car lot, at all. He did that himself.

The Khindri's said that, but Black testified that they were part of a group who had met with Sam Khindri and had permission to be there. Smith and Fedler in their testimony for the defence, also testified that they were given permission to be there.

Rittenhouse himself said he and Black were asked by Smith to join him at the Car Source and that Sal Khindri drove him, Black and Smith to a third Car Source lot and that they had permission from the owners to be there.

It's honestly not as clear cut as saying "nobody asked him to be there" when it seems that people did.

Quote:

Undoubtedly Huber contributed to his own demise. I'm not arguing with you there. I'm saying if you think Rittenhouse doesn't hold any responsibility, then we'll have to disagree.

I don't think Rittenhouse holds any responsibility for wrongfully killing Huber. The key word there being wrongfully.

Quote:

Oh, that's another thing. He didn't even purchase the gun. It was a straw purchase. He was carrying an illegally obtained weapon as well.

According to the straw purchasing law in Wisconsin it strangely wasn't.

[Segnosaur]

Originally Posted by Wildy

The Khindri's said that, but Black testified that they were part of a group who had met with Sam Khindri and had permission to be there. Smith and Fedler in their testimony for the defence, also testified that they were given permission to be there.

Rittenhouse himself said he and Black were asked by Smith to join him at the Car Source and that Sal Khindri drove him, Black and Smith to a third Car Source lot and that they had permission from the owners to be there.

It's honestly not as clear cut as saying "nobody asked him to be there" when it seems that people did.

First of all, meeting Rittenhouse does not mean that Khindri actually gave permission for him to protect the lot.

Secondly, while there is contradictory testimony about whether permission was given, there was a text message sent by Rittenhouse that asked "do you need anyone to protect your business tonight". The fact that Rittenhouse actually asked that indicates they never gave prior permission, and the fact that they never responded to the text suggests that permission wasn't given after he asked either. (Its not ironclad proof, but it certainly points in that direction.)

See: Insider

Ultimately though, its largely an irrelevant issue. Even if Rittenhouse was asked to be there. Even if Khindri came to him, tears streaming down his face, and said "Sir... could you please protect my business", Rittenhouse could (or SHOULD) have declined. He was not trained to be a policeman. He wasn't even trained to the level of a mall cop. And as I pointed out, gunfire was not a regular occurrence at the protests. A rational person would have realized that 1) he didn't have the skills to properly defend a business, and 2) bringing a firearm into a situation where nobody else was shooting people was a significant escalation.

But then he would not be able to live out his fantasy of being a cowboy vigilante by shooting the "bad guys".

Quote:

Quote:

Oh, that's another thing. He didn't even purchase the gun. It was a straw purchase. He was carrying an illegally obtained weapon as well.

According to the straw purchasing law in Wisconsin it strangely wasn't.

The legality of Rittenhouse's firearm is at best murky. The judge did dismiss the case against him, but a different judge could have ruled differently. (In fact the judge didn't dismiss the charge before the trial began and waited until the end suggests that things are not very clear.)

From: Politifact
In August 2020, we fact-checked a claim that it was "perfectly legal" for Rittenhouse to possess an AR-15 without parental supervision. Our reporting found that it was far from perfectly legal, and that it was, in fact, legally murky....Wisconsin law says that "any person under 18 years of age who possesses or goes armed with a dangerous weapon is guilty of a Class A misdemeanor." In our fact-check, we cite the possibility of an exception for rifles and shotguns. The exception is aimed at letting children ages 16 and 17 hunt. But, as it is also clear, Rittenhouse wasn’t in Kenosha to hunt.... The ruling does appear at odds with the intent of legislators.... the Wisconsin Legislative Council Staff... wrote that, "Under Wisconsin law, with certain exceptions for hunting, military service, and target practice, a person under age 18 is generally prohibited from possessing or going armed with a firearm."

Ultimately though, its another one of these issues that ultimately don't matter much. Rittenhouse could have had the weapon 100% legally, and still bear responsibility for the killings. Why? Because if he had simply decided "I am not going to go play cowboy vigilante. I am just going to leave the gun on my living room table" then he would not have escalated the situation in Kenosha to the point where he could claim "My life is in jeopardy from people who didn't like me waving a gun around!"

The situation got escalated by Rittenhouse because he was waving a gun around... whether that gun was legal or illegal would not matter to the people who might have felt threatened by a cowboy vigilante carrying a deadly weapon.

[plague311]

Originally Posted by Wildy

I must have missed the notice saying that I need to provide proof that I hold some form of legal qualification in order to post in this subforum. Perhaps I should check my messages to see if I missed the request from the mods?

What? I didn't say you couldn't post, I said it doesn't mean anything to me because, as you admit, you know little about US civil trials and have no legal bona fides.

Originally Posted by Wildy

I will admit that my knowledge of US civil trials is lacking,

No way?!?!

Originally Posted by Wildy

But contributing to a death does not necessarily make that death wrongful. I may as well ask, are you talking about comparative negligence here or something else?

Or is this simply that you can find for/against multiple defendants on the same allegation?

Yes, you can find for/against multiple defendants.

Originally Posted by Wildy

The Khindri's said that, but Black testified that they were part of a group who had met with Sam Khindri and had permission to be there. Smith and Fedler in their testimony for the defence, also testified that they were given permission to be there.

Rittenhouse himself said he and Black were asked by Smith to join him at the Car Source and that Sal Khindri drove him, Black and Smith to a third Car Source lot and that they had permission from the owners to be there.

It's honestly not as clear cut as saying "nobody asked him to be there" when it seems that people did.

It might not be clear cut, but as stated by Segnosaur it also doesn't matter. First, even if he was asked to be there it doesn't give him permission to break curfew, and second it wouldn't help Kyle even if he did have permission because Huber wasn't attacking the car lot. Rittenhouse wasn't on the car lot owners property when it happened. If Kyle would have kept his ass on the lot and not gone around confronting people, as we have reports of, then none of this would have happened. So permission or not, doesn't really make a **** bit of difference.

Originally Posted by Wildy

I don't think Rittenhouse holds any responsibility for wrongfully killing Huber. The key word there being wrongfully.

I'm sure you don't think he holds any responsibility. You've said that ad ******* nauseum throughout this entire thread. It's pretty clear at this point. I guess it's great that you're not going to have anything to do with the trial or jury.

Originally Posted by Wildy

According to the straw purchasing law in Wisconsin it strangely wasn't.

Again, as Segnosaur said, it's not as clear cut as you're saying and what you linked certainly doesn't prove it was a legal purchase.

At best, by your own admission, we have a few points that are murky or not clear. This being a civil trial that actually works to the advantage of the plaintiff since nothing has to be proven beyond a reasonable doubt. That's not how it goes. If the jury thinks that Kyle in any way, shape or form contributed to the death of Huber that runs afoul of civil law then Kyle is going to be broke for a long, long, long time. Financially, pulling that trigger might be the worst thing that Kyle ever did, even if he won't go to prison for it.

[Gulliver Foyle]

Originally Posted by Segnosaur

He should have picked a 3rd option (one you didn't mention)... and just stayed home. In that case he would never been under any "threat". Wouldn't have had a need to kill people "in self defense".

Ah but you see, if he did that he wouldn't be able to help the far right terrorist groups he was palling with "protect"* local businesses from looting.

*I'm still of the opinion that these groups were protecting in the Mafia sense of the word. Because nationally they were the cause of the vast majority of the violence and property damage during the George Floyd protests .

[Planigale]

Originally Posted by plague311

What? I didn't say you couldn't post, I said it doesn't mean anything to me because, as you admit, you know little about US civil trials and have no legal bona fides.



No way?!?!



Yes, you can find for/against multiple defendants.



It might not be clear cut, but as stated by Segnosaur it also doesn't matter. First, even if he was asked to be there it doesn't give him permission to break curfew, and second it wouldn't help Kyle even if he did have permission because Huber wasn't attacking the car lot. Rittenhouse wasn't on the car lot owners property when it happened. If Kyle would have kept his ass on the lot and not gone around confronting people, as we have reports of, then none of this would have happened. So permission or not, doesn't really make a **** bit of difference.



I'm sure you don't think he holds any responsibility. You've said that ad ******* nauseum throughout this entire thread. It's pretty clear at this point. I guess it's great that you're not going to have anything to do with the trial or jury.



Again, as Segnosaur said, it's not as clear cut as you're saying and what you linked certainly doesn't prove it was a legal purchase.

At best, by your own admission, we have a few points that are murky or not clear. This being a civil trial that actually works to the advantage of the plaintiff since nothing has to be proven beyond a reasonable doubt. That's not how it goes. If the jury thinks that Kyle in any way, shape or form contributed to the death of Huber that runs afoul of civil law then Kyle is going to be broke for a long, long, long time. Financially, pulling that trigger might be the worst thing that Kyle ever did, even if he won't go to prison for it.

I am not familiar with US law, but would he not be declared bankrupt as debts would exceed assets, and a repayment plan put in place over several years at the end of which his debts would be discharged?

[Wildy]

Originally Posted by plague311

Yes, you can find for/against multiple defendants.

Which could mean that the jury could find that Rittenhouse was not responsible for the wrongful death of Huber but that the state and other defendants were?

Quote:

It might not be clear cut, but as stated by Segnosaur it also doesn't matter. First, even if he was asked to be there it doesn't give him permission to break curfew, and second it wouldn't help Kyle even if he did have permission because Huber wasn't attacking the car lot. Rittenhouse wasn't on the car lot owners property when it happened. If Kyle would have kept his ass on the lot and not gone around confronting people, as we have reports of, then none of this would have happened. So permission or not, doesn't really make a **** bit of difference.

It does if someone is making the argument that "nobody asked him to be there".

But then again, this entire characterisation of events makes it seem like you've been looking at completely different evidence to everyone else. Rittenhouse hadn't confronted Rosenbaum at the time of the first shooting, and he didn't confront anyone at the second one.

And no, carrying a gun in public is not "confrontation", if it was then he'd be in jail.

Quote:

I'm sure you don't think he holds any responsibility. You've said that ad ******* nauseum throughout this entire thread. It's pretty clear at this point. I guess it's great that you're not going to have anything to do with the trial or jury.

It's evident that you're not reading the words I write. I am going to make this very clear, Rittenhouse was responsible for Huber's death in the sense that he shot the man. Did I think he was criminally responsible? No, because it was self-defence. Do I think his actions were wrongful? No, because he was getting his head bashed in with a skateboard at the time.

Quote:

Again, as Segnosaur said, it's not as clear cut as you're saying and what you linked certainly doesn't prove it was a legal purchase.

Under the straw purchase law that I linked what makes the actions of Rittenhouse and Black illegal?

Quote:

At best, by your own admission, we have a few points that are murky or not clear.

I have commented on Wisconsin's gun laws being bad a couple of times in this thread. Here I say they need to rewrite the statute and here I state that the law is kinda dodgy.

Quote:

This being a civil trial that actually works to the advantage of the plaintiff since nothing has to be proven beyond a reasonable doubt. That's not how it goes. If the jury thinks that Kyle in any way, shape or form contributed to the death of Huber that runs afoul of civil law then Kyle is going to be broke for a long, long, long time. Financially, pulling that trigger might be the worst thing that Kyle ever did, even if he won't go to prison for it.

It's obvious that you already assume that the death was wrongful from the start. That's something that the plaintiff will need to prove to a jury, and that part would be the uphill battle in my view. The video footage of the second shooting shows Rittenhouse not engaging with the crowd following him and only pointing his gun at people who attack or are moving to attack him. If you have a bunch of people attacking you and you kill some of them to defend yourself does that make those deaths wrongful?

I notice inWI Stat § 802.02(3) (2022) they list assumption of risk as a possible affirmative defence. I've had trouble finding how it works exactly in Wisconsin but it may also find that Huber's death was not wrongful. Based on the initial filing they're saying that Huber, having heard that Rittenhouse shot someone, was acting heroically by trying to stop Rittenhouse. The thing is that if this is the argument they present in court then it's perfectly reasonable to argue that his actions (attacking Rittenhouse with the skateboard, grabbing the gun) meant that he knew and voluntarily assumed the obvious risk involved (getting shot). Funnily enough it's the same style of argument people have been making in this thread with regards to Rittenhouse's actions: if Huber didn't do anything he wouldn't have been shot.

[Wildy]

Originally Posted by Segnosaur

First of all, meeting Rittenhouse does not mean that Khindri actually gave permission for him to protect the lot.

Secondly, while there is contradictory testimony about whether permission was given, there was a text message sent by Rittenhouse that asked "do you need anyone to protect your business tonight". The fact that Rittenhouse actually asked that indicates they never gave prior permission, and the fact that they never responded to the text suggests that permission wasn't given after he asked either. (Its not ironclad proof, but it certainly points in that direction.)

See: Insider

Or he changed his mind afterwards. The conflicting testimony is from people who were part of the same conversation where they said that they were given permission.

Quote:

Ultimately though, its largely an irrelevant issue. Even if Rittenhouse was asked to be there. Even if Khindri came to him, tears streaming down his face, and said "Sir... could you please protect my business", Rittenhouse could (or SHOULD) have declined. He was not trained to be a policeman. He wasn't even trained to the level of a mall cop.

And this line of reasoning is perfect for showing the negligence of the state in this entire matter. They let things get out of hand to the point that regular people felt that they had to step up to take the place of the state that decided

Quote:

And as I pointed out, gunfire was not a regular occurrence at the protests.

According to the NYT investigation (linked to archive snapshot because of paywall), in the section titled "second shooting" there were 16 other gunshots heard, plus Ziminski's shot.

Which raises the question, was this night an aberration, or was random gunfire a normal part of the rioting?

People have been shot at other protests in the past, sometimes because they are protesters, sometimes because they were protecting property, and sometimes for no reason at all.

By the time of Rittenhouse and his friends decided to go to Kenosha we'd already seen a police officer being attacked by a rioter.

Quite a few people had guns that night, clearly they thought that there was a possibility that they might need to use them.

Quote:

A rational person would have realized that 1) he didn't have the skills to properly defend a business

What skills are needed?

Quote:

2) bringing a firearm into a situation where nobody else was shooting people was a significant escalation.

Do you believe that Ziminski, Grosskreutz, and this random dude I only learned about today significantly escalated the situation? Or does this line of reasoning not apply to people claiming to be protesting?

[Suddenly]

Originally Posted by Wildy

I notice inWI Stat § 802.02(3) (2022) they list assumption of risk as a possible affirmative defence. I've had trouble finding how it works exactly in Wisconsin but it may also find that Huber's death was not wrongful. Based on the initial filing they're saying that Huber, having heard that Rittenhouse shot someone, was acting heroically by trying to stop Rittenhouse. The thing is that if this is the argument they present in court then it's perfectly reasonable to argue that his actions (attacking Rittenhouse with the skateboard, grabbing the gun) meant that he knew and voluntarily assumed the obvious risk involved (getting shot). Funnily enough it's the same style of argument people have been making in this thread with regards to Rittenhouse's actions: if Huber didn't do anything he wouldn't have been shot.

Making that argument to a civil jury would likely result in a damages reward that would have to be expressed in scientific notation.

[plague311]

Wildly, you believe whatever you'd like to believe. I'm not going to debate it anymore because I've seen this all before and I know how it ends. I'll just walk away now and save myself the needless back and forth that will result in absolutely no change in either of our minds.

You paint Rittenhouse and his actions in whatever light you'd like, and I'll wait for the trial to happen. I don't think your assessment is in any way accurate, and it's obvious you feel the same way about mine. I don't have the time or ***** to give to continue the debate. Good luck.