Comments by "Dan" (@Dan-di9jd) on "Kyle Rittenhouse shooting: Judge allows federal civil rights lawsuit to proceed" video.

@mobilusinmobili8321 it’s a form of ghetto lotto I agree
7
This isn't criminal case, but a civil one. Your rights to self-defense doesn't really matter per say. Kyle made a big profit off these events and as such the families are just as equally eligible for a share of that profit.
6
Civil cases are always different from criminal ones. Kyle is certainly innocent of murder and was defending himself. However, Kyle profited off his case and as such, that is wrong. The families certainly have a case against him and will no doubt have a equal share of whatever profit he makes from it regardless of him being guilty or innocent of the crimes.
5
@bird4816 I should also mention that I rarely, if ever, heard of a successful civil case against someone inside their own home or business. So if you are at home, and someone breaks in, and you have to defend yourself, you rarely have to worry about a civil or criminal case. Even in California it is almost impossible to bring a case against a home owner who is inside their home when whatever happened.
3
@bird4816 it is indeed messed up. In my local area recently a person robbing a 7-11 was stopped by a ccw carrier. That person was sued by the family but fortunately they lost but he still had a large legal fee out of it. Overall if you do carry, it is a wise idea to buy insurance with it. We live in America where you'll have to pay your way out of things unfortunately.
2
@paulkatz2483 The big question is if Kyle had to be there or if he just came under some assumption to "protect his community." As such, we could argue that Kyle, while correct in defending himself, should not have been there in the first place. As such, his actions, and the actions of everyone else, is equal in terms of why they were there despite the fact that each were there for legal or illegal reasons. I do not know the legal term but I recall some similar cases and in those cases, everyone had an equal share of whatever profit was made. It is completely different if Kyle was at home, and someone broke and in and he defended himself vs traveling to some city and place where he had this noble idea to protect the community.
1
@paulkatz2483 no I’m saying civil court is different and on different grounds than criminal. It’s sort of like if being asked to come to a war zone. You find out this enemy’s name and you go on tv talking about how you and him had this battle that’s based on total truth. It turns out you make millions of dollars to appear on tv and you get a free college education. Is that fair for the enemy’s family despite both coming there knowing they might fight either for or against legal reasons? I don’t think so. He’s going to lose at least half of whatever he earned from this if he used the family’s name.
1
@guyfanno1 and that would be a consideration. Kyle migbt lose the civil case but he might not pay a cent. Also I believe his defense was pro bono and paid for by other gun right activists. As I said he profited just not his bank account. You don’t have to base a civil case on how much money you currently have. It so nobody would win. I’d just zero my bank account and say sorry can’t pay but that’s not how it works at all.
1
@mr.patriotjol exactly so they are both there for their own reasons but not one of necessity.
1
@bird4816 It's about making a profit. When you make a profit using someone's name then that's unfair to the opposite party when the topic is a political divide. That's why when they show the "true stories" they always change the names of people and places so no one can come in and say this movie made a profit and their name was in it. In this case since the audience is divided in who is right or wrong, a good lawyer can argue that neither side is right but Kyle was able to profit off that using "his side."
1
@bird4816 and I completely agreed. I didn't say I agreed with it. I'm just stating what the facts are. It's really dumb but as I said if you carry, good idea to get insurance.
1