Kyle Rittenhouse - Riot Watch Thread

[Joshuan Moon]

They pulled this off with OJ, its the difference between criminal and civil court and Rittenhouse has a good chance of losing. The criminal courts found that Rittenhouse did nothing criminal in his actions, the civil courts are looking to see if he is liable for the damages done. They can claim that Rittenhouse escalated an encounter that would have been a fist fight into a lethal one by bringing the rifle. Obviously that legal brief is 100% biased in favor of the Estate and makes Rittenhouse look positively demonic. Rittenhouse is going to be forced to spend money to fend off this frivolous lawsuit and since its a fucking estate he basically cannot collect for lawyer fees and other related expenses, its pure expense for him.

An important distinction is that OJ didn't make a defense of self defense, he made a defense of "I didn't do it." At question in both civil and criminal cases was, "Did OJ unlawfully deprive someone of their lives?" Under the criminal standard there wasn't enough evidence to convict. Under the civil standard they found him liable. The criminal acquittal doesn't really speak to his liability to the act, just to the weakness of the evidence. Civil judgements can be based on partial liability, no need to be wholly responsible to lose. The key part is that justification for the deaths was never under question because such a defense was never raised.

In Kyle's case, the defense was that he was responsible but that he was justified. The criminal jury determined he had a justification for the deaths and the deaths were done in self defense. The conclusions you can draw from that "not guilty" verdict are different from a non self defense based verdict. Basically a self defense claim can be sunk by very little minor mistakes. So anything that would confer civil liability for a wrongful death likely also means it would also criminally be a wrongful death (not self defense).

Not that they won't try to say the criminal trial was illegitimate or some other nonsense. The point is it will have to be fought a little differently that what they did for OJ. Definitely more dirty.

 

[AnOminous]

I don't know about these things or the language in english but wouldn't his estate have been divided and sorted out at this point? If they want to collect from the "estate", and I assume it was not put in holding for this, they would have to go after the next of kin or anyone that already inherited money or things of value that might already be spent to claw back that money. And I have no idea what the law is around that but it feels wrong.
@AnOminous please, what do you think?

The OP basically explained it. You generally can't just go after the heirs because they didn't do anything. And with Rittenhouse, all the people he rightesouly slaughtered had it coming but more importantly, had nothing of value. Their "estate" is nothing. He's being sued by nothing.

Not that they won't try to say the criminal trial was illegitimate or some other nonsense.

Kyle committed homicide, which is to say he killed other human beings.

However, one should take note of Ambrose Bierce's definition of homicide in The Devil's Dictionary:

HOMICIDE, n. The slaying of one human being by another. There are
four kinds of homicide: felonious, excusable, justifiable, and
praiseworthy, but it makes no great difference to the person slain
whether he fell by one kind or another -- the classification is for
advantage of the lawyers.​

Kyle's homicides clearly fell into the "praiseworthy" category.

 

[Thomas Talus]

In Kyle's case, the defense was that he was responsible but that he was justified. The criminal jury determined he had a justification for the deaths and the deaths were done in self defense. The conclusions you can draw from that "not guilty" verdict are different from a non self defense based verdict. Basically a self defense claim can be sunk by very little minor mistakes. So anything that would confer civil liability for a wrongful death likely also means it would also criminally be a wrongful death (not self defense).

Not that they won't try to say the criminal trial was illegitimate or some other nonsense. The point is it will have to be fought a little differently that what they did for OJ. Definitely more dirty.

This occurred to me, but I'm not sure it's actually much of a hurdle for the plaintiffs, because they aren't in privity with the state, privity being necessary for issue preclusion/res judicata.

 

[Reverend]

A black women fighting for the death payout of a white pedophile caught on camera screaming "nigger" before his eventual rightful death.

So this is what America has come to.

Grifting has no restriction on how much one is willing to overlook to get a Payout.

 

[Super-Chevy454]

Time to bump this thread to mention then Kyle Rittenhouse predicted some new riots in this interview with Tucker Carlson.

 

[k0ndumba2]

God damn, kyle has seemingly dug up his victim's graves to eat them. This fat fuck is an embarrassment in his current state, even the head of meal team six would find call him a fatty-fat piggy boy.

My boy needs some ozempic or the mods may end up moving this thread to the deathfats board.

 

[SBG]

Don't think it's been mentioned, but Kyle is supposedly getting into doing a non-profit with some others.

https://www.forbes.com/sites/willskipworth/2023/08/16/kyle-rittenhouse-launches-foundation-aimed-at-fighting-gun-control/?sh=203fb886757c

https://archive.is/c7fnB

Kyle Rittenhouse Launches Foundation Aimed At Fighting Gun Control​

Would explain why he's getting to do appearances again.

 

[Cheeseknife]

Don't think it's been mentioned, but Kyle is supposedly getting into doing a non-profit with some others.

https://www.forbes.com/sites/willskipworth/2023/08/16/kyle-rittenhouse-launches-foundation-aimed-at-fighting-gun-control/?sh=203fb886757c

https://archive.is/c7fnB

Would explain why he's getting to do appearances again.

I think Right-wingers are just using him to push products and narratives. As much as I hate gun control faggots, I also can't abide by 2A niggers who treat gun-owning like a religion.

 

[SBG]

I think Right-wingers are just using him to push products and narratives. As much as I hate gun control faggots, I also can't abide by 2A niggers who treat gun-owning like a religion.

Being used to push a narrative is kind of a good thing.

The left has done this routinely with people like David Hogg to help push their own narratives so if Rittenhouse can do the same then why not?

 

[Cheeseknife]

The left has done this routinely with people like David Hogg to help push their own narratives so if Rittenhouse can do the same then why not?

In part, because it's taking pages from the Leftist playbook, but just bolting on a different set of values. You can argue they're the correct values, but if the language you're using to convey those values mimics that of your enemies, then adopting said values just looks like a game of musical chairs.

The Left also has the propensity to deify people like David Hogg which belies the Leftist desire to lord over those they deem of lesser stock or value. The way I see it, the same is being done with Rittenhouse. He is no longer some regular dude, like you or me, who rightfully defended himself. Now he is being turned into a Saint for 2A activists.

 

[SBG]

In part, because it's taking pages from the Leftist playbook, but just bolting on a different set of values. You can argue they're the correct values, but if the language you're using to convey those values mimics that of your enemies, then adopting said values just looks like a game of musical chairs.

The Left also has the propensity to deify people like David Hogg which belies the Leftist desire to lord over those the deem of lesser stock or value. The way I see it, the same is being done with Rittenhouse. He is no longer some regular dude, like you or me, who rightfully defended himself. Now he is being turned into a Saint for 2A activists.

If the values are the complete opposite then I'm not sure it's really like musical chairs unless you just dislike the Right adopting tactics that work.

I know a lot of people do dislike that as they imagine the Right should be more Principled and just be supporting their side just cause, but I don't think the principled conservative thing has ever really worked on its own.

 

[Cheeseknife]

unless you just dislike the Right adopting tactics that work.

Just because people can be manipulated doesn't mean they should be.

If the Right needs to manipulate people into accepting certain values, then it's a basic admission the values aren't important enough to accept on their own merit.

In other words people ought to do what is right and necessary for their own sakes, not because Saint Rittenhouse's non-profit told them so.

I don't think the principled conservative thing has ever really worked on its own.

America wouldn't have existed otherwise. Men just did what was good and right for their own sakes.

Doing the right thing ought to be a matter of course and not because a 2A celebrity told me so.

 

[SBG]

Just because people can be manipulated doesn't mean they should be.

Sure they should. Ideally everyone would be manipulated into agreeing with me.

Not gonna pretend everyone is a rational and reasonable person, most are retards that need to be wrangled into doing what's right. If it means needing to dangle keys/celebs in front of them then may as well.

 

[Cheeseknife]

Ideally everyone would be manipulated into agreeing with me.

That's basically what today's modern education has instilled in everyone. Millions of people who believe theirs is the correct and most obvious path. Everyone told we were special, that we could become President, an astronaut, or whatever we wanted, bar none.

And now watch as we all collide with each other.

Not gonna pretend everyone is a rational and reasonable person, most are retards that need to be wrangled into doing what's right. If it means needing to dangle keys/celebs in front of them then may as well.

But what makes you or anyone else think they're not prone to being just as if not more irrational and unreasonable?

 

[potato in mah painus]

If the Right needs to manipulate people into accepting certain values, then it's a basic admission the values aren't important enough to accept on their own merit.

And right there is why the right is on its way to becoming a minority party. They aren't willing to play dirty as a whole, where the left is not only willing to but is winning because of it.

Your morals mean shit if only your enemies benefit from them.

 

[AnOminous]

Your morals mean shit if only your enemies benefit from them.

Sounds pretty consequentialist to me. I thought the point of morals was that they were an objective good, and if you didn't adhere to them you were evil.

 

[potato in mah painus]

Sounds pretty consequentialist to me. I thought the point of morals was that they were an objective good, and if you didn't adhere to them you were evil.

Those that fight monsters as the quote goes. You can't win or maintain power in politics when one side decides the entirety of the rules and 'morals' only apply when its in their favor.

 

[Cheeseknife]

And right there is why the right is on its way to becoming a minority party. They aren't willing to play dirty as a whole, where the left is not only willing to but is winning because of it.

Your morals mean shit if only your enemies benefit from them.

The party needs to act immoraly in order to uphold their morals? Simply taking a stand for what you believe in a rebuking the other side for not adhering to your own higher morality is how it's done.

Those that fight monsters as the quote goes. You can't win or maintain power in politics when one side decides the entirety of the rules and 'morals' only apply when its in their favor.

Yes you can. Lying and manipulation only breed more lies and manipulation.

Sounds pretty consequentialist to me. I thought the point of morals was that they were an objective good, and if you didn't adhere to them you were evil.

Also, what happens when Rittenhouse decides that supporting Isreal or Ukraine or [Insert Current Thing] is a moral priority?

 

[potato in mah painus]

The party needs to act immoraly in order to uphold their morals?

More like their morals are badly flawed in the face of modern day clown world politics and should cast them off completely. Start calling the opposite side baby killing communists, start sponsoring mass riots to force step downs, start breaking up and arresting opposition party members even if you have to make up shit to do it.

Remember, this very thread's topic is a result of the left doing said things above during 2020, and besides a handful of rioters 12 feet under how many sponsors of that whole shitshow face consequences?

 

[Cheeseknife]

More like their morals are badly flawed in the face of modern day clown world politics and should cast them off completely. Start calling the opposite side baby killing communists, start sponsoring mass riots to force step downs, start breaking up and arresting opposition party members even if you have to make up shit to do it.

Remember, this very thread's topic is a result of the left doing said things above during 2020, and besides a handful of rioters 12 feet under how many sponsors of that whole shitshow face consequences?

I'd agree with all except the making things up part. It should be enough to say the things they stand for are immoral and that is reason enough that they ought to be forcibly removed.

More people ought to act like they have nothing left to lose. Like this guy who beheaded the Satan statue in Iowa.