Kyle Rittenhouse Sued by Estate of Criminal He Shot in Self-Defense

[Elderberry]

Texas Scorecard by  Sydnie Henry August 25, 2023

The estate of Joseph Rosenbaum has filed a lawsuit on the third anniversary of the Kenosha incident.

On August 25, 2020, 17-year-old Kyle Rittenhouse shot three men, killing two, in self-defense during a Black Lives Matter protest in Kenosha, Wisconsin.

Now, the estate of Joseph Rosenbaum is suing Rittenhouse, Kenosha officials, local Sheriff’s departments, the City of Kenosha, the City of West Allis, and several counties for “compensatory and punitive damages” for the “wrongful death” of Rosenbaum.

“These lawsuits are making it harder and harder for me to move on with my life,” Rittenhouse told Texas Scorecard. “It is extremely difficult to go outside without fear of being harassed or assaulted because of the lies spread in these lawsuits. No one should have to continue to defend the fact that they acted in self defense.”

More: https://texasscorecard.com/state/exclusive-kyle-rittenhouse-sued-by-estate-of-criminal-he-shot-in-self-defense/

[Smokin Joe]

Considering Rittenhouse's actions were ruled self defense, There is a real question of how these people can call the death "wrongful".

Countersue.

[Weird Tolkienish Figure]

Considering Rittenhouse's actions were ruled self defense, There is a real question of how these people can call the death "wrongful".

Countersue.

Think it will matter? All they need to do is find a lib judge, lib jury. This may be a reason why, even though I supported (and do support) Kyle's innocence, you don't hang around a riot zone with a rifle, even though you may have a right to.

[Lando Lincoln]

Think it will matter? All they need to do is find a lib judge, lib jury. This may be a reason why, even though I supported (and do support) Kyle's innocence, you don't hang around a riot zone with a rifle, even though you may have a right to.

A determined legal team, motivated by big contingency potential, will find many ways to make Kyle's life pure hell.  Rittenhouse has something to lose.  I suspect Rosenbaum's estate does not. 

[Bigun]

A determined legal team, motivated by big contingency potential, will find many ways to make Kyle's life pure hell.  Rittenhouse has something to lose.  I suspect Rosenbaum's estate does not.

And the F'n trial lawyers get ever richer!

[Weird Tolkienish Figure]

A determined legal team, motivated by big contingency potential, will find many ways to make Kyle's life pure hell.  Rittenhouse has something to lose.  I suspect Rosenbaum's estate does not.

Haha, very true. Nor do the Antifa morons that Andy Ngo recently won a lawsuit against.

I believe the saying is "you can't get blood from a stone" or something like that.

[Maj. Bill Martin]

Considering Rittenhouse's actions were ruled self defense, There is a real question of how these people can call the death "wrongful".

Countersue.

The problem is that there are different burdens of proof between the criminal trial and a civil one.  I'm pretty sure that Rittenshouse's self-defense claim was not an "affirmative defense" that he was required to prove.  Rather, the prosecution had to prove "beyond a reasonable doubt" that Rittenhouse was not acting in self-defense.  In other words, the jury in that case could have believed that while Rittenhouse was "probably not" acting in self-defense, the prosecution didn't prove that beyond a reasonable doubt.  But in a civil case "probably not" would have won.  So in that respect, the criminal acquittal doesn't not preclude a civil verdict in favor of the family.

[Kamaji]

The problem is that there are different burdens of proof between the criminal trial and a civil one.  I'm pretty sure that Rittenshouse's self-defense claim was not an "affirmative defense" that he was required to prove.  Rather, the prosecution had to prove "beyond a reasonable doubt" that Rittenhouse was not acting in self-defense.  In other words, the jury in that case could have believed that while Rittenhouse was "probably not" acting in self-defense, the prosecution didn't prove that beyond a reasonable doubt.  But in a civil case "probably not" would have won.  So in that respect, the criminal acquittal doesn't not preclude a civil verdict in favor of the family.

[Weird Tolkienish Figure]

On the other hand I wonder how the jury would react knowing this guy was a pedo?

[Kamaji]

On the other hand I wonder how the jury would react knowing this guy was a pedo?

Possibly badly, which is why that information will almost certainly not be allowed in, unless his estate is stupid enough to open the door to it.