One of the men Kyle Rittenhouse shot during the 2020 riots has sued the teenager, arguing that the shooting caused emotional distress and humiliation.
Rittenhouse shot Gaige Grosskreutz and two others in Kenosha, Wisconsin during riots that exploded after the death of George Floyd in Minnesota. Rittenhouse was acquitted of all charges in 2021.
Grosskreutz was the only one who survived.
“But he must live with the physical and emotional wounds inflicted by Defendant Rittenhouse,” the new suit states.
The suit also names the city of Kenosha, Kenosha County, and several law enforcement officials.
It alleges the defendants conspired to deprive Grosskreutz of his constitutional rights and to obstruct justice, as well as retaliation against Grosskreutz for participating in protests.
The officials “allowed Defendant Rittenhouse and other illegally armed individuals to patrol the streets of downtown Kenosha with deadly weapons, inviting those individuals to use police powers, deputizing them, conspiring with them, and ratifying their actions,” it says. That allegedly led to Rittenhouse shooting Grosskreutz.
The defendants either did not respond to requests for comment or did not have lawyers listed on the docket of the court, the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Wisconsin.
Rittenhouse asked supporters via social media for financial assistance due to the suit.
Changes Story
Grosskreutz ran toward Rittenhouse on Aug. 25, 2020, after the teen fatally shot two people.
“He approached with his hands in the air to try to ease the situation and stop the killing,” the suit states. “Defendant Rittenhouse instead shot Mr. Grosskreutz in the bicep, leaving a gaping wound.”
Grosskreutz said something different when he was under oath during Rittenhouse’s trial.
He agreed then that Rittenhouse did not fire at him until he pointed his gun at the teen.
“It wasn’t until you pointed your gun at him, advanced on him with your gun … that he fired, right?” Corey Chirafisi, part of Rittenhouse’s defense team, asked Grosskreutz.
“Correct,” Grosskreutz replied.
In media interviews after the testimony, Grosskreutz tried to walk back that acknowledgement.
“I do believe that in that photo, given the right narrative, one could suggest that yes, I was pointing my weapon at the defendant. But when you play it as a movie, or look at different stills, my arm was being vaporized as I was allegedly pointing my weapon at the defendant,” said on ABC. “It’s completely inconsistent with the physiology of my wound that he would have shot me while my weapon was pointed at his head.”
‘Shocked’
Rittenhouse told Fox News that he was surprised by being named in the suit.
“I guess it came as a shock to why he’s filing a lawsuit because he admitted that he pointed a gun in my face and that he chased me down,” Rittenhouse said.
Rittenhouse was already named in a different civil suit, filed by the family of Anthony Huber.
Rittenhouse fatally shot Huber after he advanced on the teen while wielding a skateboard.
The Huber suit, filed in the same court, portrayed Huber as “a hero” who died “when Defendant Rittenhouse shot him in the chest as Anthony tried to pull the assault rifle from Defendant Rittenhouse’s hand.”
The suit also names Kenosha officials and also accuses the defendants of deprivation of rights and First Amendment retaliation.
Ruling
U.S. District Judge Lynn Adelman, a Clinton appointee overseeing the Huber case, denied many of the motions to dismiss on Feb. 1.
Adelman said the complaint “adequately pleads federal and state claims against the governmental defendants and Rittenhouse.”
The judge did dismiss some of the claims, including state law allegations against countries outside of Kenosha County.
Rittenhouse’s lawyers had argued that Rittenhouse shot Huber because of Huber’s attempt to disarm him, not because of an alleged plan against protesters.
“However, the complaint pleads that the violence perpetrated by Rittenhouse was part of the conspiracy. Thus, I must assume that, when Rittenhouse opened fire on Rosenbaum, he was carrying out the alleged plan to harm protestors,” the judge said.
“As discussed above in the context of causation, once Rittenhouse began using violence on protestors in the confined area, he should have reasonably expected protestors to defend themselves. The harm to Huber that occurred while he attempted to disarm Rittenhouse could thus be viewed a direct result of the conspiracy. For these reasons, the claims against Rittenhouse under § 1983 may proceed. Likewise, because the complaint adequately alleges that Rittenhouse was part of a conspiracy with state actors to deprive protestors of their equal-protection rights, plaintiff’s claim against him under 42 U.S.C. § 1985(3) may proceed.”
From The Epoch Times
