re: Kyle Rittenhouse Trial - Day 4 (made the thread title more accurate)

quote:

---

it is NOT the burden of the State to DISPROVE the affirmative defense. It is the burden of the defendant to affirmatively PROVE the defense.

---

quote:

---

there ARE states in which the prosecution has the burden of disapproving a claim of self-defense, once the defense has been presented. Wisconsin is simply not such a state.

Locke

---

"State’s Burden of Proof

The burden of establishing every fact necessary to constitute guilt is upon the State. If the
defendant contends that they acted in self-defense or defense of others, the State bears the burden
of proving beyond a reasonable doubt that the defendant did not act lawfully in self-defense or
defense of others."

LINK

quote:

---

As an aside, there ARE states in which the prosecution has the burden of disapproving a claim of self-defense, once the defense has been presented. Wisconsin is simply not such a state

---

You can parse legal arguments all you want but the bottom line is that Kyle can be seen on camera from dozens of different angles FLEEING away from and not towards anyone acting in an aggressive of threatening matter. This is key in establishing self defense. While some states allow for you to stand your ground others do not. If there is a reasonable means of escape, an individual must first exhaust that avenue before lethal force is justified. Whether Kyle ran 10, 50 or 100 ft, he still ran away from Rosenbum until his avenue of escape was cut off by the parked cars. Only then did he turn and use deadly force… The same applies further up the street. Kyle is running away from pursuing individuals and towards the police line. He is clubbed in the head with a skateboard, stomped and approached by an individual with a handgun within a matter of seconds all while laying on his back in the middle of the street. In that position he has no means to escape and no direction to retreat. Dumbass with a skateboard who has clubbed him twice attempts to grab the rifle, he’s an immediate threat and catches rounds center mass. Next comes the attempt to stomp. Kyle misses twice and the attacker retreats. Next, one arm approaches with a handgun hidden but ready. He is an immediate threat and his bicep is forever eliminated.

Bottom line, you cannot change the video. Everyone can see exactly how it played out in real time. This isn’t a far fetched defense theory. It is cold hard mutha frickin facts. Everyone has a right to self defense and to deny Kyle that right is UNfrickIN AMERICAN.

quote:

---

You are citing Wisconsin JI-Criminal 801:
"You should consider the evidence relating to self-defense in deciding whether the
defendant’s conduct created an unreasonable risk to another. If the defendant was acting
lawfully in self-defense, (his) (her) conduct did not create an unreasonable risk to
another."

What is the very next line after what you cited?

"The burden is on the state to prove beyond a reasonable doubt that the defendant did not act lawfully in self-defense.

---

How about that shite? I didn’t even stay at a Holiday Inn last night and my dumb arse was right, and this condescending prick was wrong.

Lightning, you are a gentleman and a scholar for helping me, but mostly for proving beyond a shadow of a doubt that this shitstain is in fact Hankabitch.

Delicious.

F@ggie Hank lied?

Not shocked

quote:

---

This is where Hank stops replying.

---

Talk about getting bent over lol. What a dumass that thinks he knows shite. Those are the worse.

quote:

---

F@ggie Hank lied?

Not shocked

---

That's lying Liberal Hank?

He's coming back as an alter and then signing off with his alter name Locke

I do miss the real lying liberal Hank

You say that we have interacted in the past, but I have absolutely no recollection whatsoever of your existence.

In any case, the authority you are citing is related to an “imperfect“ self-defense claim, as opposed to a “perfect“ self-defense claim. Yes, under Wisconsin law, the State carries the burden of proof on an “affirmative defense“ which directly attacks an element of the underlying cause of action. This makes perfect sense, because it is a challenge to an element of the states case, but also this is not such a case. (Legal theorists could argue all day as to whether an attack on an element of a claim is even an “affirmative defense“ at all, Given that a true “affirmative defense” accepts that the underlying claim is valid, but reasons that the responsive behavior is nonetheless justified. But that debate has no bearing upon today’s discussion”)

As to “self-defense” claims, a “perfect“ self-defense is a situation in which the defendant is OBJECTIVELY correct in believing himself to be in danger. And “imperfect“ self-defense is a situation in which the jury determines that belief not to have been objectively accurate, but instead that the defendant DID believe himself SUBJECTIVELY to be in danger. The net effect of an “imperfect“ self-defense claim in a Wisconsin case like Rittenhouse is to reduce the charges from first degree to second- degree.

In this case, the Rittenhouse team (correctly, in my view) has elected not to pursue an “imperfect“ self-defense argument, focusing instead (“rolling the dice“ if you will) on the “perfect” self-defense. .

I would also know that the language upon what you rely is simply a report from a state bar committee regarding jury instructions, whereas the case I cited was actual appellate court authority on the point, In which the appellate court explicitly disagreed with the reasoning of that committee.

The law you outline is certainly interesting, but it has no bearing whatsoever on this case.

I honestly do not know whether you do not understand this distinction, or just did not see it during your research. Either way, I feel no need to insult you. I see no need to question your manhood. I see no need to insult your ancestry. I see no need to insult your intelligence. None of that is necessary, in any attempt to engage in reasoned discussion of an interesting issue.

I have outlined Wisconsin law, as I believe it to be applicable, And I remain 100% convinced that I am correct. You believe otherwise. Neither of us is going to change our minds, so I wish you a good day.

Locke

quote:

---

Bottom line, you cannot change the video. Everyone can see exactly how it played out in real time. This isn’t a far fetched defense theory. It is cold hard mutha frickin facts. Everyone has a right to self defense and to deny Kyle that right is UNfrickIN AMERICAN.

---

Agreed. Rittenhouse should and will be acquitted, based upon “perfect” self-defense.

The “parsing” of legal arguments you referenced, relates to whether he will be able to maintain a civil tort action for recovery against local government related to their decision to pursue this case.