Which one was the dick head who thought it was a good idea to chase after a guy he knew had a gun and attack him when he was on the ground?
#4 | POSTED BY TOR

I'm sorry you're such a ----- that you wouldn't do what you could to try to stop an armed assailant, but Huber was a better person than you.

Two things will make a wrongful death lawsuit payout difficult.
1. The acquittal.

Criminal prosecution has a far higher evidentiary standard than a wrongful death suit. Many courts will even prevent defendants' the counsel from even mentioning an acquittal in front of the jury due to its tendency to confuse rather than offer probative value.

Can you name the person rrittenhouse had attacked when he was assaulted with a skateboard? Or does that person not exist?
#12 | POSTED BY TOR

I could name the unarmed person he shot and killed while the fat manlet was cosplaying as a militia member, but your nose is so far up his ass that it wouldn't make a difference.

#18 The cops didn't care about ------- Kyle and his gun, moron.

I said it would be difficult but not impossible.

No, you said it would be "made" difficult by something that specifically does not make it more difficult. Why lie? It's right there dude. Just admit you're stupid.

Both were looking for trouble so that cancels out.

The presence would make it easier, its lack means it harder.
#26 | POSTED BY VISITOR_

You have no clue how any of this works. Stay in your lane, short bus.

#33 I was thinking the same thing. Several police departments are now going to face discovery requests for all of their pro-militia correspondence, which they are not going to want made public. --------- Kyle better up his grifting game if he wants in on the settlement because he can't just gouge taxpayers to fund it.

#34 I already explained it to you and then you lied about what you posted, so why not just pull a Bellringer and disappear from the thread already you ------- moron.

You cannot possibly believe that if Rittenhouse had been convicted a civil case would be difficult to win do you?

No, because that's the reverse of this scenario. A criminal conviction requires guilt beyond a reasonable doubt, which is essentially 100% proof. A civil judgment merely requires a preponderance of the evidence, or 50.1%. And that's even granting you that the elements established in each case are identical, which they aren't.

In this case, the only thing that has occurred is a failure to get to 100%. That is not at all a barrier to getting to 50.1%, and in many courtrooms the defendants' counsel is precluded from even mentioning the failure to get to 100%.

Now shut the ---- up.

I don't agree with you at all, short bus. Failure to get to 100% will not "make it more difficult" to get to 50.1%, as you claimed in #10. Now stop lying.

You said the acquittal will make the wrongful death case difficult. Stop pretending you didn't say that. It isn't true. Go read something about this, --------.

Did you know that no matter how many times you repeat or revise that post, it will still be wrong?

Evidence of acquittal in a criminal action is generally irrelevant and inadmissible in a civil case involving the same incident since it constitutes a negative sort of conclusion lodged in a finding of failure of the prosecution to sustain the burden of proof beyond a reasonable doubt."
Estate of Moreland v. Dieter, 395 F.3d 747 (7th Cir. 2005).

"The general rule is that evidence of a prior acquittal in a criminal case is inadmissible in a civil case in which the conduct underlying the criminal charge is at issue."
Florida Institute for Neurologic Rehabilitation, Inc. v. Marshall, 943 So.2d 976 (2006).

"[T]he fact of acquittal in a prior court proceeding involving similar subject matter is usually not admitted into evidence ... That is because such acquittals are not generally probative of the defendant's innocence in the case at trial and the information has a tendency to confuse the jury rather than assist it."
U.S. v. Bisanti, 414 F.3d 168 (1st Cir. 2005).

"[E]vidence of a prior acquittal is not relevant because it does not prove innocence but rather merely indicates that the prior prosecution failed to meet its burden of proving beyond a reasonable doubt at least one element of the crime ... such evidence was properly excludable because in this instance its probative value was substantially outweighed by the danger of unfair prejudice, confusion of the issues, or misleading the jury."
U.S. v. Kerley, 643 F.2d 299 (5th Cir. 1981).

Here's where you continue to proudly flaunt your ignorance. Let's see it.

Uh huh.

An assault rifle cancels out a skateboard?

Rightwingers worship at the altar of gun violence so the answer of Kyle's ballgarglers is an emphatic "yes."