Image 01 Image 02 Image 03

Federal Judge Allows Lawsuit Against Kyle Rittenhouse to Proceed

Federal Judge Allows Lawsuit Against Kyle Rittenhouse to Proceed

“The father of Anthony Huber, one of two men shot and killed by Rittenhouse, filed the lawsuit in 2021, accusing officers of allowing for a dangerous situation that violated his son’s constitutional rights and resulted in his death.”

A federal judge has ruled that a wrongful death lawsuit by one of the men killed by Kyle Rittenhouse can proceed. This will undoubtedly be cheered on by the left, including the media. They still resent the fact that a jury found him not guilty.

The Associated Press reports:

Lawsuit can proceed against Kenosha shooter Kyle Rittenhouse

A federal judge in Wisconsin ruled Wednesday that a wrongful death lawsuit filed by the father of a man shot and killed by Kyle Rittenhouse during a protest in 2020 can proceed against Rittenhouse, police officers and others.

The father of Anthony Huber, one of two men shot and killed by Rittenhouse, filed the lawsuit in 2021, accusing officers of allowing for a dangerous situation that violated his son’s constitutional rights and resulted in his death. Anthony Huber’s father, John Huber, also alleged that Rittenhouse, who was 17 at the time of the shootings, conspired with law enforcement to cause harm to protestors. John Huber is seeking unspecified damages from city officials, officers and Rittenhouse.

U.S. District Judge Lynn Adelman on Wednesday dismissed motions filed by Rittenhouse and the government defendants seeking to dismiss the civil rights lawsuit.

In allowing the case against Rittenhouse and the others to proceed, the judge said that Anthony Huber’s death “could plausibly be regarded as having been proximately caused by the actions of the governmental defendants.”

Rittenhouse attorney Shane Martin said in a phone interview that it’s important to note the ruling doesn’t address the merits of the case, it only allows it to proceed to the next phase.

Note the language the left uses to describe the scene in Kenosha that night. Raw story calls it a “social rights march”:

Kyle Rittenhouse, who skyrocketed to fame in right-wing circles after shooting and killing two protesters during a social rights march in 2020, is now facing a wrongful death lawsuit filed by the victim’s father, according to PBS.

The Journal Sentinel calls it a “protest”:

A civil rights lawsuit against Kyle Rittenhouse and the city and county of Kenosha will be allowed to move forward, a federal judge ruled Wednesday.

Anthony Huber was one of three men shot by Rittenhouse during the August 2020 protests that followed the shooting of Jacob Blake by police two days earlier.

Rittenhouse was acquitted in a homicide trial in the deaths of Huber, 26, and Joseph Rosenbaum, 36. He also was found not guilty of injuring Gaige Grosskreutz, 26.

This is a good summation of the situation:


Donations tax deductible
to the full extent allowed by law.


They need to hold Huber’s family accountable for a % of the damage from the riots.

Until we adopt a European loser plaintiff pays attorney fees system, this kind of bullshit will go on forever.

    I seem to recall that “loser pays” used to be the prevalent system in America…until liberal activists got it changed on the grounds that it was unfair to poor people.

      randian in reply to pst314. | February 6, 2023 at 6:12 am

      It is unfair, unless you like the idea of deep-pockets defendants bankrupting plaintiffs with stiffly padded legal fees. Nobody would risk suing a government agency or large corporation if that were possible.

        Milhouse in reply to randian. | February 6, 2023 at 6:17 pm

        Randian, no it is not unfair. On the contrary, the American rule is unfair. The plaintiff is the one who decides to force the defendant to incur fees; if the plaintiff is correct, well and good, let the defendant bear the fees as well as paying what he owes. But if the defendant turns out to be correct, how is it fair for him to still have to pay for defending himself? It wasn’t his choice to go to court.

        If you are not confident of your case, and you don’t want to risk paying the defendant’s reasonable costs that you imposed on him, then DON’T SUE. It is wrong to encourage such suits, especially since the plaintiff is often risking nothing at all, because he found a lawyer willing to take the case on contingency.

      Milhouse in reply to pst314. | February 6, 2023 at 6:14 pm

      No, it was never prevalent in the USA. All the way back to colonial times, litigants had to bear their own fees.

This is just a corollary of the truism that “you can sue anybody for anything, it says nothing about how justified the suit is.” It looks to me like this suit is really aimed at the local police, who worked for the local leftie mayor, and who did jack-shit to stop the rioting (and maybe they deserve to get sued). Rittenhouse is additionally named because hey, the more pockets you can sue, the deeper you can scoop, plus your case get lots of free publicity.

    Optics aside, it’s normal to list everyone conceivably connected, then focus on the deep pockets when it gets close to trial time. Rittenhouse probably doesn’t have much to sue for, but there might be sympathetic city folks willing to settle for a big payout. The left gets some positive headlines out of it as a bonus.

    To be specific, they expect the leftie mayor to cave and pay them off with millions in taxpayer dollars, possibly with an additional set of restrictions on the remaining police force in dealing with other riots. The spark of truth in here is that if the police were actually deployed to defend the businesses and the public from violent rioters that night and *before* when most of the arson happened, Kyle would never have needed to go with his friends to protect an already-arsoned business from more criminal action from the mass of criminals in the streets. The criminals would have been arrested as they deserved.

LongTimeReader | February 3, 2023 at 6:05 pm

Honestly, this is pretty galling. I would rather the business and property owners be compensated than this money grabber get a penny. His son would have lived had he not assaulted and attempted to disarm someone who didn’t even know he existed until he was attacked by him.

Like father, like son. Both trash.

smalltownoklahoman | February 3, 2023 at 6:22 pm

The left still wants a scalp regarding Rittenhouse. If they can’t put him behind bars they are going to try their damnedest to ruin his life. They hate him because he successfully defended himself against some of their rioting thugs, ruled not guilty on all of the charges laid against him, and they just can’t stand that! Imagine: not having to just bend over and take it when they throw one of their tantrums. The sheer nerve!

Is this the guy who hit Rittenhouse with the skateboard? Kyle was on Rikieta’s show last week and said he still has constant headaches and a dent in the back of his skull.

    MarkSmith in reply to Ann in L.A.. | February 4, 2023 at 10:52 am

    Huber was responsible for Assault “AND BATTERY.” He had a history of it too. Rittenhouse and all parties involve should counter sue. Huber broke every trigger for stand your ground and the Castle doctrine.

    The question at hand is should the police stopped the violent protest in the first place? That had zero to do with Rittenhouse. The city and businesses should go after Huber for the damages that the rioters had done to them.

      Milhouse in reply to MarkSmith. | February 4, 2023 at 8:51 pm

      Countersue whom? Huber is dead. His parents are not responsible for anything he did.

        pst314 in reply to Milhouse. | February 5, 2023 at 9:48 am

        Unless some of the commenters here want to emulate the communist and fascist regimes which held families responsible for the speech and actions of any one member.
        Come to think of it, that was also the policy in Imperial China: If one villager broke a law, the entire village might be punished–executed, even.

        MarkSmith in reply to Milhouse. | February 5, 2023 at 3:42 pm

        Countersue whom? Well is there a law suit? Duh, There is a a party to counter sue unless the court says otherwise. It appears the court recognizes a party, so there can be a counter suit.

          pst314 in reply to MarkSmith. | February 5, 2023 at 6:52 pm

          But countersue on what grounds?

          pst314 in reply to MarkSmith. | February 5, 2023 at 6:53 pm

          On what legal basis can the father be sued for bringing a wrongful death lawsuit?

          Milhouse in reply to MarkSmith. | February 6, 2023 at 6:21 pm

          No, MarkSmith, there is not a party to countersue. A deceased person’s family is entitled to sue for wrongful death, but they cannot be sued for anything the deceased did. Only his estate can be sued, and it’s extremely unlikely that he left anything significant.

This “judge” needs to go back to law school for remedial instruction on Torts.

Transparent Dumb-o-crat activism at play, here.

    Concise in reply to guyjones. | February 3, 2023 at 8:33 pm

    A civil rights violation? Rittenhouse was acting under color of law? This sounds rather goofy. Have there been any analogous case against civilian defendants?

      guyjones in reply to Concise. | February 4, 2023 at 8:28 am

      This isn’t my area of expertise, but, given the absurdly thin — dare I say, non-existent — reed on which this activist “judge” alleges that the plaintiff’s case stands, I would venture to say there is no analogous case. The “judge’s” reasoning is that weak.

      Edward in reply to Concise. | February 4, 2023 at 12:17 pm

      Apparently the claim is he “conspired” with the local PD to deprive what’s his face of his civil rights, resulting in his death. So the father either believes that load or has been taken in by some scum sucking, bottom dwelling, ambulance chasing lawyers.

      How this judge plans on letting those aforementioned lawyers prove the conspiracy will be either fun or maddening. He should have dropped Kyle from the suit if that is where this is going. But then how will the judge let those lawyers get Huber killed?

    Milhouse in reply to guyjones. | February 4, 2023 at 9:08 pm

    The only question before him was is this case plausible. Could it have happened the way the plaintiff says it did. That’s all. No examination of the evidence, because that only happens if and when it goes to trial. The jury will have to decide whether the evidence backs up the complaint, and if it’s an honest jury it will find that it doesn’t (at least as far as Rittenhouse). But at this stage the only question is whether it’s possible that he’s liable, and the answer is obviously yes, it’s possible, and given different facts it might even be likely.

In allowing the case against Rittenhouse and the others to proceed, the judge said that Anthony Huber’s death “could plausibly be regarded as having been proximately caused by the actions of the governmental defendants.”

Whatever this cuckoo “judge” may claim about proximate causation, I’ll confidently state that Huber’s death was directly caused by his own actions in assaulting Mr. Rittenhouse with a deadly weapon (a skateboard), intending to cause him serious bodily injury and/or death.

nordic prince | February 3, 2023 at 7:04 pm

…alleged that Rittenhouse, who was 17 at the time of the shootings, conspired with law enforcement to cause harm to protestors

What utter horseshit. Conspiracy? That alone should be enough to throw out the lawsuit, if the judge were honest.

    That “conspired with law enforcement” part is a red flag to me: If the lawsuit, as argued at trial, is based on such a contention, then I expect it will fall apart because there is no evidence of such a conspiracy.

Get a lawyer in there to dig deep into Huber’s Antifa connections. I’m sure you can get some deep pockets to fund that excursion. Seems even more germaine than it would have been in the criminal trial. Wear them out.

The Milwaukee Journal Sentinel is an over the top left wing shit bag not even good for picking up dog dodo

I’m from Milwaukee and I ought to know ….,vid:zmaU4ykjANg

Perhaps the upside of this continued attack on Kyle will be a broad base of support for a “Kyle’s Law.: This is just another example of why it is justified.

Huber surrendered his rights when he attacked Kyle with his skateboard.

    Jury has already ruled that hitting someone in the back of the head with a skateboard constitutes a deadly attack and justifies deadly force in defense – and that that’s exactly what occurred in this instance. You have no “Civil Right” to hit someone in the back of the head with a skateboard, 2×4, baseball bat, or any other object which might result in their death.

    The perps death arguably can be said to result from the INaction of the authorities, in that standing down and letting riots occur unhindered by police interference made things worse than otherwise. But that’s a logical and moral conclusion, legally the injured party is the perps victim, not the perp. Just as all those kids killed recently when cowardly police stood down rather than do their job, the family of the kids has logical, moral, AND legal cause to sue the authorities, not the family of the perp.

      Milhouse in reply to BobM. | February 4, 2023 at 8:57 pm

      The jury only found that the case against Rittenhouse was not proven beyond reasonable doubt. That’s all. It did not find that he was justified, because it was not its job to find that. So without examining the evidence (which will be for the jury at the civil trial, if it comes to that) it’s completely plausible, as a matter of law, that Rittenhouse was in fact responsible for Huber’s death, and that his family can show that this is more likely than not. To find out that they can’t requires a trial.

        Joe-dallas in reply to Milhouse. | February 4, 2023 at 9:53 pm

        Concur – Nice to have a voice of sanity and someone who actually understand the correct legal standards that are applicable in this case and many others you have commented on.

        While I think the evidence to support the plaintiffs claim is exceedingly weak, the legal standard neccessary to proceed to trial is sufficient. Though I would hope the judge doesnt allow a bunch of junk crap to be entered into evidence to support the weak claim ( ie some variation of the daubert standard for admission of evidence that doesnt really support the allegation. My apologies for not having the correct terminology for the admission of crappy evidence. (its not daubert since it isnt a science based issue)

          Joe-dallas in reply to Joe-dallas. | February 5, 2023 at 12:56 pm

          I am going to make a slight modification to my statement.

          Since the Rittenhouse claimed self defense in the criminal trial, there was slight shift in the burden of proof. Kyle had to demonstrate some level of proof that it was self defense. Once that level of proof of self defense exists, the burden of proof shifted back to the prosecution to prove beyond a reasonable doubt that it wasnt self defense.

          The burden of proof in a civil trial is “a preponderance of the evidence”. The judge ruling that the case can go to trial is that there was enough facts to go to trial.

        Milhouse – false exclusionary argument there.
        It’s undisputed that R shot the skateboard guy.
        There’s no “reasonable doubt”, on that, even R admits shooting.
        The only possible question left for a jury or judge to address was
        “Was the shooting justified?”.

        The jury didn’t vote that R didn’t shoot the guy, they voted that – given the totality of evidence and testimony – the prosecution couldn’t convince them that any reasonable person being battered with deadly force in that circumstance would be unjustified with defending with deadly force.

        Unless a civil trial can successfully convince a judge or jury that swinging a heavy object like a skateboard into the back of a head is not deadly force R’s defense should stand. Any other result is both a perversion of Justice and a violation of R’s Civil Rights to no redos on failed prosecutions.

          Joe-dallas in reply to BobM. | February 5, 2023 at 7:06 am

          Milhouse is absolutely correct. This case is a civil case while the murder trial that Rittenhouse was found not guilty by reason of self defense was a criminal trial.

          Two separate and distinct cases with different legal standards, different cause of action, etc. Being found innocent in the criminal trial has zero bearing on the civil case. This is basis law.

          similar to the OJ simpson criminal vs civil case ( with the exception that OJ was guilty, just the criminal trial , jury did not convict)

          In summary, everyone could learn from MIlhouse since he gets the legal standards correct

          Milhouse in reply to BobM. | February 6, 2023 at 6:30 pm

          BobM, you have the standard backwards. In the criminal trial the only question before the jury was, “Has the prosecution convinced you, beyond reasonable doubt, that Rittenhouse was not justified in shooting Huber?” If a juror thought Rittenhouse was probably not justified, but was not convinced of it beyond reasonable doubt, he had to vote “not guilty”. The jury was not asked, and had no way to answer, whether it agreed that Rittenhouse was justified; all it could say was that they weren’t sure he wasn’t. As a matter of law it could easily be that they all thought he was unjustified; it could even be that he actually was unjustified. (Again, without looking at the actual evidence, which of course is heavily in Rittenhouse’s favor.)

          In a civil case the jury would be asked whether he was more likely to be justified or unjustified; obviously the answer is that he was justified, but the plaintiff is entitled to ask that question to a jury.

Communist judge appointed by William Jefferson Clinton in 1997.

Ballotpedia calls the position “non-partisan”, but that is a lie. This decision is based solely on raw partisan politics – and nothing else. The Federal judiciary is partisan and unjust, and has been for decades.

The US desperately needs its own version of the Nuremberg trials to deal with those like Adelman who use their power to violate the Constitution and basic human rights.

The trajectory of this series of suits is paralleling several others in the past with Crump in them. It’s a short sequence:
1. Sue the individual and the city for massive money.
2. Pressure the city. Threaten… um… I mean gently encourage them to settle by having protests and riots… I mean energetic demonstrations and a few spontaneous late-night no-cost shopping sprees. If the city and the police make any effort to stop them, crank it up ten times as hard.
3. When the city makes a generous settlement with the extortionists… I mean concerned lawyers, throttle back on the demonstrations and focus them on the individual.
4. Use the cash from the settlement and the resulting agreement to drop the hammer on the individual. Get a tame judge, a frightened jury, and soak the defendant for nuclear stupid amount of money that will bankrupt them for life and eternity.
5. Fundraise off the whole circus while demonizing the defendant.

Why isn’t Soros named in this lawsuit? He is the person behind the whole riot.

US. District Judge Lynn Adelman….

‘Nuff said.

Those of us in Cheeseland know this leftnik nutball well. 20 years in the state legislature, 3-time US House race loser, before being appointed by Clinton. The best thing that can be said about him is that he wasn’t even considered for the Seventh Circuit after being proffered to Obama by fellow uberlib Russ Feingold.

I need a breakdown of this because I don’t understand why Rittenhouse is getting sued. I can see the father suing the city for allowing the riots to go unchecked, I guess, but Huber attacked Rittenhouse who defended himself after trying to escape. Seems odd the judge didn’t remove Rittenhouse and let the rest go on.

    amwick in reply to diver64. | February 4, 2023 at 8:27 am

    Comments above pretty much said that in a suit like this, anyone remotely connected with the “tragic” death is named. The plaintiff actually claimed that Kyle conspired with the police, blah blah blah.. I don’t get it myself… how the judge allowed this to proceed, but legal things are mysterious to me. I would love to see Kyle show up on one of the court dates, (if it gets that far) in a FAFO t shirt.

    I am sure we will be hearing more about this..

If the suit was limited to the mayor then I’d support it because these riots were allowed to happen by Democrats in control of all these cities.

It’s a close call as to which group is more of a drag on the economy- all those on the dole or the legal profession.

If he’s not guilty in the death, how can he be liable?

    Tim1911 in reply to MarkS. | February 4, 2023 at 1:47 pm

    Lower standard of proof for civil case.

    Milhouse in reply to MarkS. | February 4, 2023 at 9:03 pm

    Same as OJ. The state couldn’t prove the case against him beyond reasonable doubt, but that doesn’t mean the family can’t prove he’s more likely to be guilty than not. And to succeed in a civil suit that’s all they need to do. We know they can’t do that because we know the evidence; but to answer your question we have to forget all the evidence. The judge has to act as if he hasn’t looked at the evidence; the only question before him is whether the family’s allegation is plausible, and without looking at the evidence it obviously is.

ConradCA wrote: “I thought Rittenhouse got large settlements from the news medi who. Called him a murderer.”

I think you are thinking of Nick Sandmann, the Covington Catholic boy who was musically assaulted by the “tribal elder.” He and Rittenhouse spoke, but I don’t believe any suits were filed. There was a false claim to the contrary:

BierceAmbrose | February 4, 2023 at 3:20 pm

So, the local police are on trial here, or letting this thing get out of hand?

Does this judge understand what he just did?

Memo for Anthony Huber’s dad: Your son had a bad habit of f***ing around. And he eventually found out.

    pst314 in reply to MarkJ. | February 5, 2023 at 9:52 am

    Young Antifa thugs tend to have liberal to left-wing parents who raised them to think that the left is entitled to do whatever it wants to those it deems enemies. I wonder about Anthony Huber’s father.