Rittenhouse lining up a case for defamation.

@mott-the-hoople said
LOL

Perhaps you right wingers don't understand that a Not Guilty verdict in a criminal case only means that the jury did not find there was evidence beyond a reasonable doubt to disprove that the defendant didn't act in legal self-defense.

It does not mean the jury adopted as true every single thing any right winger has said regarding the case. Nor does it mean that a civil jury using a "preponderance of evidence" standard won't reject Rittenhouse's self-defense claim and find him liable.

@no1marauder said
Perhaps you right wingers don't understand that a Not Guilty verdict in a criminal case only means that the jury did not find there was evidence beyond a reasonable doubt to disprove that the defendant didn't act in legal self-defense.

It does not mean the jury adopted as true every single thing any right winger has said regarding the case. Nor does it mean that a civi ...[text shortened]... eponderance of evidence" standard won't reject Rittenhouse's self-defense claim and find him liable.

you lost, quit your whining

@no1marauder said
There's ways to collect judgments if the person who lost the case "ignores the bill".

Not if they don't have any money to begin with.

@dood111 said
Not if they don't have any money to begin with.

As I already pointed out, a judgment is good for 20 years and can be enforced at any point during that time. Wages can be garnished, assets seized, etc. etc.

@no1marauder said
Good luck with that.

Neither should survive summary judgment; trying to disarm someone who you reasonably believe is an active shooter isn't a tort.

Whether Huber reasonably believed Rittenhouse was an active shooter and was justified in chasing him and swinging a skateboard at him multiple times (including once when he was on the ground) is a jury issue.

@dood111 said
So what?
All they have to do is look at the video.
Any idiot can see it was self defense and that he'd be dead if he didn't shoot them.
Dunno why you can't see that.

easy answer.....libs are ikndocytinatted (indoctrinated) to respond in knee-jerk style to absolutely anything put forth by a reasonable man...in this case, a conservative. Automatic NO! They are told to think later, just to say no now.
Av Joe, I know what I'm taukin' bout.

@no1marauder said
If you say so.

Some people see what they want to see.

Libs see what their dear leaders tell them to see. Would I lie?

@jimm619 said
You're wrong again Doo.
Right-wing deep pockets raised over
$2 million for his bail and legal fees.
There may be some left and, if not,
the boy is the darling of 'the wing nuts' and,
I'm sure, he can raise plenty of money if need be.

You gotta admit ,, though, with Soros covering all your expenses, for parading and rioting, that we conservatives don't have that kind of money, and it is commendable that we were able to help this innocent man keep the hyenas (you ) at bay.

We don';t have a maniacal Soros. You have creepy bedfellows. Have you ever seen a picture of this 'RICH" old man? Your godfather is REALLY ugly. Do y'all have any Ronald Reagans?

@no1marauder said
Good luck with that.

Neither should survive summary judgment; trying to disarm someone who you reasonably believe is an active shooter isn't a tort.

For edification of your fans, what is it?

@sh76 said
Whether Huber reasonably believed Rittenhouse was an active shooter and was justified in chasing him and swinging a skateboard at him multiple times (including once when he was on the ground) is a jury issue.

There was no evidence presented that I know of that he didn't "reasonably believe" that Rittenhouse had just shot someone and was fleeing the scene. The burden of producing such evidence would be on Rittenhouse in a civil case.

Using a skateboard against a person with an AR-15 is unwise, but no reasonable jury could find it "excessive" under the circumstances that Huber found himself in.

@averagejoe1 said
For edification of your fans, what is it?

What is what? Summary judgment? A tort?

You have heard of the Google search function, haven't you?

@no1marauder said
There was no evidence presented that I know of that he didn't "reasonably believe" that Rittenhouse had just shot someone and was fleeing the scene. The burden of producing such evidence would be on Rittenhouse in a civil case.

Using a skateboard against a person with an AR-15 is unwise, but no reasonable jury could find it "excessive" under the circumstances that Huber found himself in.

In civil cases, my understanding is that the burden of proof is on the defendant to prove self-defense.

I understand that this may vary from state to state, but here are some examples.

https://www.njcourts.gov/attorneys/assets/civilcharges/3.10.pdf?c=Dew

"The defendant denies that he/she should be called upon to pay damages to the
plaintiff on the ground that whatever injury was sustained by the plaintiff was
inflicted by the defendant in defense against an assault being made upon him/her by the plaintiff. Thus he/she raises what is known in the law as the defense of self
defense. Since it has been introduced by the defendant the law imposes upon the
defendant that burden of proving this defense according to the standard of burden
of proof which I have set out in this charge."


https://law.lclark.edu/live/files/7234-lcb144art5forellpdf (p 417)

"As is typical, in the criminal case against
Peairs, the burden was on the prosecution to prove beyond a reasonable
doubt that his belief that he needed to use deadly force in self-defense
was reasonable. On the other hand, as is typical, in the civil case the
burden was on Peairs to prove by a preponderance of evidence that his
belief was reasonable."

@sh76 said
In civil cases, my understanding is that the burden of proof is on the defendant to prove self-defense.

I understand that this may vary from state to state, but here are some examples.

https://www.njcourts.gov/attorneys/assets/civilcharges/3.10.pdf?c=Dew

"The defendant denies that he/she should be called upon to pay damages to the
plaintiff on the ground that whatever ...[text shortened]... the
burden was on Peairs to prove by a preponderance of evidence that his
belief was reasonable."

We were discussing a hypothetical counterclaim against Huber for assault On such a claim, the burden would be on the claimant. Moreover, to defeat a summary judgment motion, that party would have to present credible evidence that raised a genuine issue of fact.

This is Civil Pro 101.

@averagejoe1 said
Libs see what their dear leaders tell them to see. Would I lie?

Constantly - why would you change now?

@dood111 said
Not if they don't have any money to begin with.

Judgement proof. A good case for not trying to ever make any money.., to be a loser. Then no one can get any money from you.