Kyle Rittenhouse...

[CivilDiscourse]

Victims 2 and 3 are defending the city against a rampaging active shooter. If self-defense applies in that case, the law is an ass. We hope there will be a civil prosecution in due course, when the burden of proof will be different.

Is there a mouse in your pocket?

[Cow Poke]

Victims 2 and 3 are defending the city against a rampaging active shooter. If self-defense applies in that case, the law is an ass. We hope there will be a civil prosecution in due course, when the burden of proof will be different.

1. You'd pretty much have to find a lawyer who would work on a contingency basis, thinking he has a snowball's chance of winning.
2. No lawyer in his right mind would go for a civil award in a case where it has been so clearly demonstrated - even by the prosecution's key witness - that every element of "self-defense" was met.

[seanD]

This almost deserves it's own thread, because it's shifting to a whole 'nuther aspect of this Rittenhouse case.

Once more with feeling! Media coverage of the Rittenhouse case was hot garbage

Some of this, no doubt, will be part of the basis of the defamation suit.

We covered this territory during the trial but now that it’s over it’s worth remembering that the media’s coverage of this case was terrible from the moment it happened. Today, Drew Holden put together a thread hitting some of the lowlights:

And then they go into a wrap-up of the lies leading up to the trial.

That level of coordinated deception should be frightening to people.

[rogue06]

obvious troll.jpg

Hope you had a nice day.

[firstfloor]

1. You'd pretty much have to find a lawyer who would work on a contingency basis, thinking he has a snowball's chance of winning.
2. No lawyer in his right mind would go for a civil award in a case where it has been so clearly demonstrated - even by the prosecution's key witness - that every element of "self-defense" was met.

The burden was on the prosecution to prove beyond a reasonable doubt that it was not self defense. That’s what the jury considered. The defence simply claimed self defense.

[Sparko]

Victims 2 and 3 are defending the city against a rampaging active shooter. If self-defense applies in that case, the law is an ass. We hope there will be a civil prosecution in due course, when the burden of proof will be different.

1. You can't defend property with deadly force, remember? So they can't defend the city against an active shooter. They can only defend themselves from an active shooter.
2. Kyle wasn't actively shooting anyone. He only shot after they attacked him. You can't be proactive in your self defense. They attacked him first. If he attacked them first, then they would have the right to self-defense. That was what the whole trial was about. In every instance it was shown that they attacked him first and he fought back.

[rogue06]

1. You can't defend property with deadly force, remember? So they can't defend the city against an active shooter. They can only defend themselves from an active shooter.
2. Kyle wasn't actively shooting anyone. He only shot after they attacked him. You can't be proactive in your self defense. They attacked him first. If he attacked them first, then they would have the right to self-defense. That was what the whole trial was about. In every instance it was shown that they attacked him first and he fought back.

The prosecution was reduced to having to try to minimize those attacks by claiming that you can't kill someone by hitting them with a skateboard and saying he should have just accepted the mob beatdown.

[Cow Poke]

The burden was on the prosecution to prove beyond a reasonable doubt that it was not self defense.

Correct - and the prosecution's own key witness blew that completely out of the water.

That’s what the jury considered. The defence simply claimed self defense.

OK, you're really not getting it. When somebody claims self-defense, it's as you say - the burden is fully on the prosecution to prove it was not.

The "claim" of self-defense was not disproven. So it stands. That's how it works.

[Sparko]

The prosecution was reduced to having to try to minimize those attacks by claiming that you can't kill someone by hitting them with a skateboard and saying he should have just accepted the mob beatdown.

Yep. And by saying that he admitted that they were attacking him first and what he did was self-defense.

[Sparko]

Correct - and the prosecution's own key witness blew that completely out of the water.



OK, you're really not getting it. When somebody claims self-defense, it's as you say - the burden is fully on the prosecution to prove it was not.

The "claim" of self-defense was not disproven. So it stands. That's how it works.

Presumed innocent until PROVEN guilty beyond a reasonable doubt.

And there was plenty of reasonable doubt in the prosecutions claims.

for every piece of evidence that could be taken either way, the jury has to give the benefit of doubt to the defendant. So when the prosecution was claiming some fuzzy screen shot was showing Rittenhouse pointing a gun at Rosenbaum, it was not clear that is what it showed. It could be just a blob of light or something else. So the jury has to accept it as a reasonable doubt that the picture doesn't show him pointing his gun. The doubt goes in favor of Rittenhouse.

[whag]

Presumed innocent until PROVEN guilty beyond a reasonable doubt.

And there was plenty of reasonable doubt in the prosecutions claims.

for every piece of evidence that could be taken either way, the jury has to give the benefit of doubt to the defendant. So when the prosecution was claiming some fuzzy screen shot was showing Rittenhouse pointing a gun at Rosenbaum, it was not clear that is what it showed. It could be just a blob of light or something else. So the jury has to accept it as a reasonable doubt that the picture doesn't show him pointing his gun. The doubt goes in favor of Rittenhouse.

YES. Reasonable doubt always has the potential to exonerate guilty people for that reason.

[Ronson]

Victims 2 and 3 are defending the city against a rampaging active shooter. If self-defense applies in that case, the law is an ass. We hope there will be a civil prosecution in due course, when the burden of proof will be different.

If these bozos believed he was a rampaging "active shooter" then they were too stupid to be out without a nanny. He wasn't shooting anyone that any of these attackers witnessed, and was jogging down the middle of the street toward police cars.

These criminals and felons were part of a mob, and were thinking with their mob mentality. They just wanted a target. They picked the wrong guy.

[NorrinRadd]

The whole he crossed state lines with an illegal weapon was what the prosecutors seemed to have built their case around. That was the basis behind their oft repeated claim that he can't claim self-defense during an illegal act that he was responsible for. And when that fell apart they didn't have a Plan B and instead just kept going ahead with the original.

The "No Borders" crowd is *still* harping on the "crossed State lines" issue. Crazy, unless they think they can use it as some kind of hook somehow.

[mossrose]

If these bozos believed he was a rampaging "active shooter" then they were too stupid to be out without a nanny. He wasn't shooting anyone that any of these attackers witnessed, and was jogging down the middle of the street toward police cars.

These criminals and felons were part of a mob, and were thinking with their mob mentality. They just wanted a target. They picked the wrong guy.

whag and firstfloor would have been completely comfortable in the crowd shouting for Barabbas to be released to them instead of Jesus.

[Cow Poke]

YES. Reasonable doubt always has the potential to exonerate guilty people for that reason.

You're one of them? Can't say I'm even a little surprised.

So, did you actually watch the trial, or just the lying media version of it.