I agree - MSNBC should be at the top of the defendant is list - if all these people are unhappy with the verdict - bitch at the prosecution for putting on a loser case - NOT because a better defense ended in acquittal 🤬🤬
Is there anyone else watching the Rittenhouse trail
-
-
Unfortunately I suspect we will now see the same thing we saw in the O.J. Simpson case where having not gotten the result they want in criminal court they will now go after Mr. Rittenhouse in civil court and try to ruin him financially for the rest of his life
-
Unfortunately I suspect we will now see the same thing we saw in the O.J. Simpson case where having not gotten the result they want in criminal court they will now go after Mr. Rittenhouse in civil court and try to ruin him financially for the rest of his life
Sadly I believe you are correct - some liberal ambulance chaser will take the case for the notoriety because what do they have to recover from an 18 year old kid?? In Rittenhouse’s favor the age of majority in Wisconsin is 17 in a criminal case - 18 civilly. Since the event happened when he was 17 - he cannot be sued - only his mother - at least that would be my defense off the cuff.
-
I'd go after Biden as part of that for his remarks. Can you sue an active President? I'd try....
Wasn't the statement made before he was president? According to Fox News Bill Clinton was
-
Sadly I believe you are correct - some liberal ambulance chaser will take the case for the notoriety because what do they have to recover from an 18 year old kid?? In Rittenhouse’s favor the age of majority in Wisconsin is 17 in a criminal case - 18 civilly. Since the event happened when he was 17 - he cannot be sued - only his mother - at least that would be my defense off the cuff.
well I hope you are correct - just seems totally wrong that I guy could be found not guilty and then have his financial future destroyed - - I know the standards for guilt in a civil case are much lower than in a criminal case, but it still seems to me like it flies in the face of the double jeopardy laws
seriously not guilty should truly mean not guilty, not okay were going to lower the standards and try again
I personally thought O.J. was probably guilty as hell, but what I think is not important, what's important is that the system acquitted him - and to me that should have been the end of - it just seems wrong to me that after being acquitted they can just change courts and go after everything you ever owned - actually in O.J.'s case it really didnt work as well as Mr. Goldman would have liked because O.J. has a huge NFL pension and Pensions are protected from lawsuits like this
-
-
Unfortunately I suspect we will now see the same thing we saw in the O.J. Simpson case where having not gotten the result they want in criminal court they will now go after Mr. Rittenhouse in civil court and try to ruin him financially for the rest of his life
I don't think so.
For an attorney to sue Rittenhouse he has to have some benefit to him as his (or her) time is money. So the attorney either has to see potential financial gain or gain enough in reputation to justify the effort.
The closest case I can think of is George Zimmerman. To my knowledge no attorney has tackled it and Zimmerman is a far better target than Rittenhouse given that Zimmerman had no business leaving his vehicle.
-
Soooo did CNN suspend Cuomo because of ethical reasons or to free up funds for Kyle's payday?
-
-
Technically he made the world a better place. A better record than Fraudchi...
-
How the left saw the Rittenhouse trial:
