- This topic has 59 replies, 16 voices, and was last updated 3 years ago by .
-
Posts
-
Reb E : It says in the Torah that if a partially married girl is violated she is innocent as she cried out but no one came to help her. But according to you she was in the wrong place at the wrong time and is deserving the death penalty. Also she was negligent at the begining when she left her house even though she was forced at the end, Yet the Torah says she is innocent. How do you reconcile that?
I also don’t understand your comment “when it comes to money matters”, imploying that Ritterhouse would have to pay montary damages according to Jewish Law. It has been my understanding that according to Jewish Law, if someone commit a Capital Offence such as murder or attempted murder and at the same time incurred a monatary obligation he is obsolved from paying even if he doesn’t get the death penalty. Is there something I am missing?He either pays money or is guilty of murder. Being in the wrong place does not mean that they are free to kill you and accost you.
RE -“I consider this what the gemora calls תחלתו בפשיעה וסופו באונס originally negligent (should not have been there with a rifle) and accidental at the end (self defense) when it comes to money matters, he is responsible”
Your Liberalism won’t let you see the Truth!
It was Not Peshiah at the beginning!
Because he was there to protect Businessness & give First Aid.
It was Immature of him to become the Cop, when the real cops ran away!I DON”T UNDERSTAND according to the Torah you can’t pay money to get out of going into exile ie the city of refuge. if you accidently killed someone. But if you intentionally shoot someone and are found innnocent you have to pay?
Please note I am not saying in secular law, if the estate of his two victims and injured victim want to sue Rittenhouse in civil court they can’t win a monetary award. Of course you know that Kyle Rittenhouse’s mother works as a nurse’s aid which doesn’t pay much. H. His father was an addict and at times they were homeless. Kyle worked odd jobs to support himself and his family. So the only money he may have is for his defence fund. Good luck getting your hands on any of that money.Does Reb E understand that once Kyle Rittenhouse is found not guilty by the state court he can no longer be found guilty for those murders and likewise unless he is sued in civil court he doesn’t owe anybody anything. Similiarly President Biden doesn’t owe him anything even though he defamed him.
It’s only after he sues them in court and wins that they will owe himI agree but he can be sued in civil court.
Even with a civil case, the burden of proof is on the plaintiff. Being that the videos are the videos and the alleged victim has already testified under oath, there would be little to go with should someone want to prosecute a civil case. So the likelihood of there being a civil case is small.
Claiming miscarriage of justice is a political thing, the DOJ has no office that investigates any miscarriage of justice.
There also is no civil rights claim, as Rittenhouse did not deny anyone of their civil rights.
2cents A civil case is very likely as 2 people were killed and the third lost alot of muscle in his arm so the estate of the dead men and the still living life one can sue him for damages. Just like there was a lot of conservitives who contributed to Kyle’s defence fund, there are probably a lot of liberals who would contribute to a legal fund to sue the pants off of Kyle Rittenhouse. This is the only way the Liberals can try to punish him and get justice.
The civil case is all about who is at fault, undoubedtly they are both at fault to some extent. The jury must decide what per centage of fault each participant contributed. If the jury finds Kyle at fault for more than 50% then he must pay that per centage of the damages, but if he is found to be at fault for less then 50% he pays nothing. The jury also determines how much the dsmages are. So they may find kyle at fault for $1.00 and this way make everyone happy.Abba_S
“undoubedtly they are both at fault to some extent”
Why do you say so?
Kyle is at fault becuase he shot three people and his three victims are at fault becuase they attacked or threaten to attack him. It’s up to the jury to decide.
- You must be logged in to reply to this topic.