Gaige Grosskreutz is suing Kyle Rittenhouse for shooting him. Now I want you to watch this video clip and tell me what you think will happen. (I have it queued up to the relevant part)
I know that later, Grosskreutz claimed that he only pointed the gun at Rittenhouse because he was in fear for his life, but he didn’t testify to that at all until that point. He never once mentioned self defense.
13 Comments
Hightecrebel · February 21, 2023 at 11:24 pm
If it’s not summarily dismissed it’s only because the judge hates the idea of someone defending themselves
Bean · February 22, 2023 at 1:00 am
Depends on how liberal the judge is and the jury are.
It has a chance in the right court room.
After all, we’ve seen actual criminal court cases where the defendant has been proven with facts to be totally innocent but yet the jury, wishing to punish the defendant, or, more likely, in fear for their lives, voted to convict said defendant. A certain highly publicized self-inflicted death of a serial felon and the fallout thereof comes to mind.
Aesop · February 22, 2023 at 12:09 pm
Rittenhouse’s only error was only firing the single shot. One to the head as well would have been a better choice, at that point.
Rittenhouse should countersue for a like amount for public menacing, and put this @$$hole in poverty for life.
Steve · February 22, 2023 at 2:29 pm
Yes, but…
Civil court is a completely ‘nother matter. Don’t know about your jurisdiction, but in mine, it’s common for the jury to decide, for example, that Rittenhouse was 30% to blame because he didn’t have to be there, and Grosskreutz was 70% to blame because not only did he choose to be there, he was the aggressor.
Then, if the suit was for $10 million, they would assess Rittenhouse $3 million + legal fees because plaintiff prevailed. Had Rittenhouse countersued, and they were handled simultaneously, the $3 mil would be offset by the $7 mil responsibility of Grosskreutz, though Rittenhouse (defendant) would not be eligible for recovery of attorney fees.
Michael · February 22, 2023 at 7:14 pm
Last time I checked you *still* cannot get blood out of a stone and I strongly doubt Mr. Antifa has ANY Assets to his name.
I also know that LAWYERS Always get paid.
So, Rittenhouse *Still* gets screwed even if the jury somehow escapes the liberal Judges words.
It’s been said often enough in today’s Clown World “Justice System” the Process IS the Punishment.
Steve · February 23, 2023 at 11:02 am
Exactly, Michael. Rittenhouse is a sufficient cause celebre that he will probably get enough from crowdfunding to pay the lawyer. What is essential is that he countersues so the awards offset. Otherwise, you will end up with one set of suits/guns making sure Rittenhouse pays up NOW, while the set of suits/guns enforcing the claim against Grosskreutz let it slide until the new millennium.
The sad thing is how many people who are not newsworthy who will be completely wiped out by this kind of asshattery that goes on every day in “our” civil court system. Where they will be forced to sell the house, the car, everything, and liquidate the retirement accounts just because the system is rigged against them. And then the IRS will come after them for the taxes and penalties for premature disbursement of the 401(k).
Michael · February 23, 2023 at 8:52 am
So my reply to dear Aesop was posted then deleted?
Was almost looking forward to his snappy reply.
Divemedic · February 23, 2023 at 11:22 am
It was previously approved because I didn’t notice that there was a personal attack in the comment. This caused Aesop to reply in kind. I generally do not like the comments section here to degenerate into a flame war, so all of the offending posts were removed.
Michael · February 23, 2023 at 12:22 pm
Thanks for explaining.
However you have discussed before the difference between Self Defense and murder when you’re before the court.
Suggestions from a noted influencer like Aesop that Rittenhouse’s Mistake was not to shoot his disabled attacker in the head seems unwise.
Divemedic · February 23, 2023 at 12:48 pm
Better.
I would agree that expressing an intent to kill rather than an intent to defend oneself is unwise.
Michael · February 23, 2023 at 1:18 pm
🙂 I was very interested in the Rittenhouse case. Did as much reading on it as available.
The fact that Rittenhouse “Shot to STOP” the assault vs the murder charges the DA was working on seemed important.
Rittenhouse’s social media was brought into court to “show intent” to DO SOMETHING at the Antifa “mostly peaceful protests”.
The gun owner classes I’ve been too, are very adamant that you shoot to “STOP” and never tell anyone (EVEN in Social Media) you shoot to kill.
As I’ve been involved in a shooting self-defense and they cleared me as well as returned the weapon I am very concerned about social media issues showing up in court.
Divemedic · February 23, 2023 at 1:49 pm
My answer is that: “If I ever was placed in the unfortunate situation where I had to discharge a firearm to defend my life, I would be doing so to stop the actor from attempting to kill or permanently disfigure me, or to stop his commission of a violent felony.
It is unfortunate that the force required to immediately stop someone bent on death or destruction is often enough to result in death. Regrettably, though, that is sometimes the case.
My heart goes out to the family of the person that may have lost his life in this incident, and I hope that they can find peace in this trying time.”
Michael · February 23, 2023 at 1:55 pm
Wow, I was under too much stress to remember all that.
Maybe that’s why the classes tell you “Shot to stop” the assault.
Active duty shooting wasn’t as stressful.
Comments are closed.