mariomike said:
All I know about US law is what I learned from watching Matlock. I was excused from jury duty.
That is NOT to suggest criminal guilt or innocence.
I believe this is the disclaimer: "All suspects are considered innocent until proven guilty in a court of law."
I was just remembering a few guys who did ok on the criminal raps, but got hit hard in civil court.
eg: OJ, Robert Blake, the subway vigilante etc.
Interesting how the federal civil rights lawsuit is not just against Kyle, but also includes Facebook, and the militia.
The lawsuit, filed on Tuesday, Sept. 22, alleges the defendants “promoted attendance, violence, and imagery designed to threaten, intimidate, and harass.”
I'm no lawyer either. Perhaps SMEs will weigh in?
Well, I'm not an American lawyer OR a civil lawyer ... but, based on my general knowledge from my perspective as a criminal lawyer in Canada ...
In Canada, it is certainly possible to sue someone in civil court notwithstanding an acquittal in criminal Court. I do not have the case/citation at my fingertips, but this is a well-established principle. This is largely because the civil and criminal courts have significantly different burdens of proof. Criminal law is "proof beyond a reasonable doubt" whereas civil is "balance of probabilities".
Proof beyond a reasonable doubt, in Canada, has been defined many times but
R. v.
Lifchus, [1997] 3 SCR 320 is authoritative, well-written, and one that is frequently used in jury instructions (and I often use it in closing submissions/jury addresses myself). It does not involve proof to an absolute certainty; it is not proof beyond any doubt nor is it an imaginary or frivolous doubt; but at the same time more is required than proof that the accused is probably guilty -- a jury which concludes only that the accused is probably guilty must acquit.
Whereas "balance of probabilities" is essentially 50% +1 so I believe that "probably guilty" would be enough to find that a tort in civil law was committed.
Given that U.S. law is based on the same English Common Law as Canada, I don't think that a finding of not guilty at trial would be dispositive of a civil case. Because not guilty just means the jury had a reasonable doubt.
That said, in my
personal opinion, the case for self defence is so obvious and clear, that I would not be surprised if a jury felt that even on a balance of probabilities no wrongdoing was committed.
The video evidence clearly shows that someone fired a pistol at Mr. Rittenhouse before the first shooting of Mr. Rosenbaum.
If you look at the 3:36 mark of the "Donut Operator" breakdown I posted on page 1 of this thread I believe (https://youtu.be/pbsOIoqcit4?t=216) you can clearly see Rosenbaum chasing Rittenhouse and throwing something at him. Then there is a gunshot (not Rittenhouse -- angle two clearly shows another guy shooting a pistol in his direction) and in response to that gunshot Rittenhouse turns as Rosenbaum is charging/lunging at him screaming "F*** YOU!" in response Rittenhouse with a split second to decide and not knowing whether the shot came from Rosenbaum, fires.
rly: 
