Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

To: JGPhila
... the Plaintiff must establish that the defendants agreed to achieve a particular result, here to injure or kill Huber, and that once the agreement was made Rittenhouse performed an overt act in furtherance of the conspiracy.

During the trial, the prosecutors really tried to make a deal out of Kyle's affinity with the cops. It wasn't too impressive.

29 posted on 02/02/2023 8:30:23 AM PST by gloryblaze
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 21 | View Replies ]


To: gloryblaze

I have a great deal of respect for most police officers. The job is difficult and most perform with professionalism. That does not mean that I would enter into a conspiracy with the police to do something illegal. Likewise, with Rittenhouse. Even if the Plaintiff portrays him as a wannabe cop, it does not mean he conspired with the police. Likewise, the Plaintiff will have to show that Rittenhouse did not act in self-defense in shooting Huber. The burden of establishing self-defense is much less than the beyond a reasonable doubt standard in a criminal trial. A fair-minded jury may be reluctant to translate Rittenhouse’s respect, affinity, for police, coupled with the multiple threats to his own life that night, into something as nefarious as a conspiracy to kill two people and injure a third. Of course, much will depend the Judge’s instructions to the jury on how to weigh the evidence presented at trial to determine if it establishes a conspiracy.


44 posted on 02/02/2023 8:51:36 AM PST by JGPhila
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 29 | View Replies ]

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article


FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson