TVP
“Firstly, in no way shape or form did he violate any civil rights.”
I never said they would win the lawsuit against him. sorry if that wasnt clear
” I’m pretty sure that burning down buildings isn’t a “right”. ”
no but living is.
” And the jury already determined that he was not the instigator.”
This would be a new jury, obviously. And while I would yield to a lawyer of course, I’m pretty sure that under a new trial (as there would be should the families sue) they don’t pick up where the old trial LEft off. “Ok so we concluded Kyle was not the instigator, now should he be civility liable…”
another jury might find that he WAS the instigator (to be clear I’m nto saying he was of that they would) and IS civilly liable
furthermore you are reading more into the verdict than there is. all they said is “not guilty” thats it that doesn’t mean thye accepted all or even any of the defense’s claims. Presumably they did, but the verdict doesn’t somehow encompass that. Not aonly that it doesnt even mean he isnt nt guilty of say first degree intentional homicide, it means he isnt guilty “beyond a reasonable doubt. For vcivil case you dont need “beyond a reasonable doubt” .So even if a second jury found him guilty (not saying they would) the juries would NOT be arguing He could be guilty based on the “preponderance of the evidence” which is “not huilty” when it comes to criminal charges but guilty when it comes to civil.
Fiannly although “negligence” did come up a bit in the trial, as it was a criminal trial the bulk of the case was whther he acted intentially or even recklessly. Even if he was neither of thsoe , he could still have been negligent wh mkes him ily liable
So to sum up. I am not saying he will be sued nor that if sued he would lsoe.
I am saying he could and might be sued.