Lol. THE LAW said Kyle Rittenhouse was abiding by self-defense. A pedophile and woman beater tried to hit him in the head with a skateboard and then jump him. So he shot. But, you know how those pesky facts go.
Wrongful death lawsuit filed against ex-Alabama star Brandon Miller
- Thread starter rick64
- Start date
The pedophile and women beater did have the skateboard. He had an empty plastic bag. The 2nd guy he shot and killed had the skateboard. He wasn't a pedophile or woman beater. Jesus, if you're going to cite "facts" at least get them correct.
Eh. Guy had a skateboard and when he knocked him down he yelled get him and tried to hit him with it. Kyle shot. Charges dropped on self-defense.
Not sure why you feel the need to be such a jerk about your supposed legal knowledge on here. As he told you, citing neligence per se and res ipsa for this Brandon Miller case is just ridiculous. As is your notion that because some contingency fee plaintiff's attorneys filed this case, there must be some merit to it. Every plaintiff's attorney is a contingency fee attorney. And many cases filed are total BS. I don't know whether the plaintiffs here can get their claims past a MTD or MSJ, maybe they can. But that doesn't change the fact that most of the stuff you have been arguing on this thread is flat wrong.
Lol, I will happily except any evidence you have that proves anything I have said is wrong. It shouldn't be too hard if you guys are so sure you're correct.
Also, the fact you think all plaintiffs attorneys are contigency based tells me you don't know a lot about it. Hint: they aren't all contingency. 🤣
Lol, again no. Kyle was already on the ground when the guy with the skateboard swung it at him. Again, if you're going to cite "facts" at least freaking know them. Otherwise you just look damn foolish.
Also, the charges weren't dismissed. He was acquitted. Big difference. Those pesky facts though.
Last edited:
Why don't you show us a plaintiff's personal injury attorney who does not take cases on contingency. You're saying there are some who only represent rich injured people who can afford to pay by the hour?
A simple Google search would have saved you some energy.
"Personal injury cases vary in complexity, and lawyers may charge higher legal fees for more complex cases. As a result, many accident victims are hesitant to hire personal injury lawyers due to their legal fees. The good news is that most personal injury lawyers work on a contingency fee basis, meaning they only receive their legal fees for the personal injury cases that they have won. However, this is not always the case."
Do most PI attorney's work off contingency? Sure! But you said all plaintiffs attorney's do. That isn't correct at all, and even changing it to all PI attorney's isn't correct either. It's up to the attorney and client.
The facts are Kyle shot in self defense. He didn’t pursue those people he shot, he was pursued and defended himself. If the victims were pedophiles, woman beaters or the most upstanding citizens to date is not relevant to the case.
Well, again, no. The reason he was involved is because he confronted the initial guy who was setting a dumpster on fire. That sure seems like pursuit.
I don’t recall arguing otherwise to your 2nd point.
Confronting someone who is destroying property is not a crime. He didn’t walk up to him and shoot because of such.
Who said it was?
You said Kyle didn't confront him. I am just pointing out he did in fact confront him.
You all really need to try reading and comprehending at the same time. It would do some of you wonders.
However, is lighting a dumpster on fire really destroying property? How did Kyle know who's property it was to begin with?
You need to learn to take your own advice. Doesn’t matter if Kyle said anything to anyone first. I clearly stated he did not pursue anyone he was pursued which is exactly what happened. Doesn’t matter if he said anything to him first, that’s not pursuing him. Pursuing and confronting are vastly different. What’s that reading comprehension thing again you keep barking about?
But Kyle did pursue him. Kyle saw the guy lightning the dumpster on fire from a distance, went over to him and his counterpart (Pursuit) and confronted him and continued monitoring him until the other guy got fed up at him and started yelling and throwing a plastic bag at Kyle.
You can call it whatever or excuse it all you like, but Kyle did pursue him first.
Again, try reading and comprehending. It's a whole new experience!
You will make a great lawyer as you keep arguing over pointless facts as a deflection. Try reading and comprehending this. “It doesn’t flipping matter if Kyle spoke to him first and told him to move along”. No shots were fired until the idiots “pursued” Kyle who was toting a weapon to the point Kyle felt he needed to defend himself. That’s what this issue is about. Did Kyle pursue them to shoot them or did he shoot in self defense. You whole spill is “argumentative” and I didn’t go to law school but I have watched my cousin Vinny on at least 5 occasions so there’s that.
I am not arguing anything, I am simply pointing out the actual facts. That's why I keep pointing out that you can't comprehend. You're literally not able to understand what is actually being discussed.
It does matter if you're going to claim Kyle never pursued him. That is categorically false. He did pursue him which is how they became engaged in the first place.
Kyle defended himself because the guy eventually charged at Kyle and tried to steal Kyle's gun. Lord, you all really need to learn about things before you try lecturing others about them.
And you need to learn the definition of pursued. Did Kyle follow this person waiting for them to do something so he could confront or did he happen to stumble upon someone and confronted them about it. If you are going to be a lawyer you need to learn the English language and No the definitions of such terms you toss around. Pursued implies Kyle knew this person was going to do something andfollowed him around until such time he could confront the individual. There is a huge difference in pursing and confronting. Kyle confronted him, he purses Kyle after being confronted. And yes you are arguing and don’t like the semantics of pursue vs confront. Don’t blame me, blame Webster.
He pursued them. He was on a roof and observed the men, then followed them. It was his 2nd interaction of the night with the same men.
Pursuit definition "the act of following or searching for someone or something, in order to catch or attack the person or thing:"
Sure sounds like what Kyle did.
You do also realize there are legal definitions for terms that aren't the same as the dictionary version, right?
Again, bud, try reading and comprehending.
Do you realize that, in matters of statutory construction, courts typically look at the plain meaning of a word to ascertain what the legislature meant? "Pursuit" is an ordinary word. If the "legal" definition of the word differs from the ordinary definition in Webster's dictionary (and I don't believe it does), the ordinary would likely control.
Depends on if they are already defined or not in the statute, or how they have been interpreted in precedent.
Lol, no, courts generally don't throw out definitions for Webster's. 🤣
You really have no idea what you're talking about. Let's all remember that you started out your contributions here by claiming that the Brandon Miller case was a res ipsa loquitor case. That is all we need to know about your legal "analysis". LOL.
I seem to know a bit more than you.
Also, can you point to where I said it was res ipsa? Or did I say it was a possible option for them to explore if others weren't as strong? You wouldn't need to lie about what I said if you were comfortable with your claims. Unless of course, you just don't read well and can't actually remember what I said.
What are the elements for res ipsa again?
Also, what is a case example where the court substituted a webster definition for something already defined in the statute text or in already existing case law. Here is your big chance to prove me wrong!
As you yourself posted earlier, one of the main elements of res ipsa is that the wrong must have been caused by something solely in the defendant's control. Here, we have a gun that was not in Miller's control when it was used to kill the woman. It was in someone else's (the shooters'). The whole point of res ipsa is that whatever happened was so obviously, and solely, the fault of the defendant that the only question should be damages.
The only reason why I weighed in on your inane argument about the word "pursuit" is you were lecturing someone that the ordinary meaning of that word would not control - that they would have to look to the legal definition to understand what it meant. That is typically the reverse of the way a court would look at a statutory construction question (unless the statute defined the word). I don't care to debate this anymore, and I certainly am not going to do legal research for you.
The only reason why I weighed in on your inane argument about the word "pursuit" is you were lecturing someone that the ordinary meaning of that word would not control - that they would have to look to the legal definition to understand what it meant. That is typically the reverse of the way a court would look at a statutory construction question (unless the statute defined the word). I don't care to debate this anymore, and I certainly am not going to do legal research for you.
Where was the gun before it got in the shooters hand? Where was the gun when Miller was driving the car? Sure sounds like it was in his exclusive control, and he brought it to the shooter after being texted for it. That makes it solely in his control leading up to the shooting. The fact that the shooter took it from his backseat and killed someone doesn't negate the fact it was in Miller's control until that point. If he doesn't bring it after being asked to they can't take it and shoot someone with it at that time. That's kind of Miller's negligence.
Also, who the hell thinks it's reasonable to take a gun to college age kids at a bar where they have been drinking, around 1 am, when they are actively texting you for it? Would you think this is reasonable?
Again, you are off the mark here. Can you please point out where I said which version would control? If you slow down and try reading and comprehending simultaneously, you will see I simply pointed out that standard definitions and legal definitions could vary. I never said they for sure did here, just that they often do.
If it's in the statute they will certainly go with that definition. If not, they often look at the text of the statute to determine what the drafters of it intended to mean. That will usually go back to case law. If it's not ascertained through those, then they will generally go with the plain version of the term.
You really should have been done a while ago.
Last edited:
So you have proof that 1) Miller knew the gun was in fact stowed away in his back seat 2) you can prove that Miller read the text message before driving to the scene where the shooting took place? #2 should be easy to prove as it would be time stamped when the message was read. You then have to prove that he knew the gun was in his back seat.
I don't know either. Never claimed to. I have literally said I know very little of the facts here. However, depending on if they can prove this or not, they would have a valid claim to pursue if so. That's been my whole point. The evidence will ultimately dictate this claim. I am just pointing out the possible claims they have to work with.
Given that the mother of the victim has found a firm willing to take it after knowing a lot more about it than anyone here does, I would imagine they feel as though they have at least a decent shot at settlement or going to court. They are at a total financial loss if they don't, and they are the ones who's reputation would be dinged.
If you have a gun not secured and someone dies courts have ruled against the owner. There is some precedent. It is Alabama though.
This whole paragraph (“Where was the gun before it got in the shooters hand? Where was the gun when Miller eas driving the car? Sure sounds like it was in his exclusive control, and he brought it to the shooter after being texted. That makes it solely in his control leading up to the shooting. The fact that the shooter took off from his backseat and killed someone doesn't negate the fact it was in Miller's control until that point. If he doesn't bring it after being asked to they can't take it and shoot someone with it at that time. That's kind of all Miller's fault.”) sure Seens to me you have claimed miller was indeed at fault here and likely found liable at least in a civil court of law.
Not at all. I have stated numerous times I don't know most of the facts or evidence. Mine is just based off first impressions of what is publicly known.
I do think the evidence that is publicly known likely suggests he knew. Prima facie means at first glance or first impression. That is the standard used to see if it is a claim which will survive the preliminary challenges to even make it to court. Obviously, the plaintiffs attorneys feel like it has some substance as well.
Ultimately, I agree it likely never gets tried because I think Miller settles.
This has been interesting read, I won't presume to get into the arguments on finer points of law I will offer a little perspective on trials and juries
The plaintiff's attorneys will argue the facts when the benefit their client, they will argue both sides of any fact that appears in dispute of another fact. (time, placement of gun, covered or uncovered etc) They will try to argue "facts" not in evidence and use omissions of information to invent their own "facts"
A jury is made up of a collection of random people of various backgrounds, educational levels and social make-up. There is no way to predict what random fact a member of the jury will lock on to as the deciding factor in a case. The attorneys mad deem something trivial but a jury can focus on that particular piece of information a critical.
If this goes to trial somewhere down the road the Alabama basketball program will take a pr hit.(and they probably should)
As I think all the learned jurists in this thread might agree the last thing the attorneys in this case want is a jury trial.
The plaintiff's attorneys will argue the facts when the benefit their client, they will argue both sides of any fact that appears in dispute of another fact. (time, placement of gun, covered or uncovered etc) They will try to argue "facts" not in evidence and use omissions of information to invent their own "facts"
A jury is made up of a collection of random people of various backgrounds, educational levels and social make-up. There is no way to predict what random fact a member of the jury will lock on to as the deciding factor in a case. The attorneys mad deem something trivial but a jury can focus on that particular piece of information a critical.
If this goes to trial somewhere down the road the Alabama basketball program will take a pr hit.(and they probably should)
As I think all the learned jurists in this thread might agree the last thing the attorneys in this case want is a jury trial.
Last edited:
