- My Forums
- Tiger Rant
- LSU Recruiting
- SEC Rant
- Saints Talk
- Pelicans Talk
- More Sports Board
- Winter Olympics
- Fantasy Sports
- Golf Board
- Soccer Board
- O-T Lounge
- Tech Board
- Home/Garden Board
- Outdoor Board
- Health/Fitness Board
- Movie/TV Board
- Book Board
- Music Board
- Political Talk
- Money Talk
- Fark Board
- Gaming Board
- Travel Board
- Food/Drink Board
- Ticket Exchange
- TD Help Board
Customize My Forums- View All Forums
- Show Left Links
- Topic Sort Options
- Trending Topics
- Recent Topics
- Active Topics
Started By
Message
0
Posted on 11/3/21 at 7:56 pm to LockeNLoad
Well written but you joined October of 2021 and are a Texas A&M fan? Enjoy your time on the board.
Posted on 11/3/21 at 7:57 pm to CAD703X
Just give the kid a fair trial. Witch hunts are not acceptable in the republic. If he is guilty, let him serve his penance. If he is innocent, let him walk free.
This post was edited on 11/3/21 at 7:58 pm
Posted on 11/3/21 at 7:59 pm to Jax Teller
quote:
Jacob Blake shooting
Yes Jacob Blake was shot by the police because he was committing black gangbanger crap while trying to kill someone else, type of thing?
Posted on 11/3/21 at 8:20 pm to troyt37
quote:Because the prosecution only has to establish “probable cause“ on the homicide. To establish “probable cause,” they do not have to negate any affirmative defense that the Defendant might raise, in order to avoid liability for malicious prosecution.
How does defending your life against armed attackers provide probable cause for any charges whatsoever?
So, what is the “probable cause” on homicide? He killed two people. Everyone in the court room has admitted that, including the Defendant’s own attorney. That matter is not even IN ISSUE. The state has not just established “probable cause;” it has met its burden of proof on the entire case.
The burden has now shifted to the Rittenhouse team to establish the elements of their affirmative defense. If they fail to do so, they lose the case, and Rittenhouse goes to prison.
I think the Defense will do so, but that has absolutely nothing to do with the validity of a malicious prosecution claim. “Probable cause” on the homicide charge is utterly and completely independent of the validity of the affirmative defense.
Your downvotes simply confirm that you are posting from emotion rather than from even the most rudimentary effort to understand the issues.
Locke
This post was edited on 11/3/21 at 8:34 pm
Posted on 11/3/21 at 8:33 pm to CAD703X
Does it seem like this trial is moving quickly?
Any guesses on how long before they send it to the jury?
Any guesses on how long before they send it to the jury?
Posted on 11/3/21 at 8:49 pm to LockeNLoad
Remember when you didn’t understand the word murder?
Good times.
Good times.
Posted on 11/3/21 at 8:50 pm to LockeNLoad
Go to bed, Hank.
Posted on 11/3/21 at 8:53 pm to LockeNLoad
quote:
So, what is the “probable cause” on homicide? He killed two people. Everyone in the court room has admitted that, including the Defendant’s own attorney. That matter is not even IN ISSUE. The state has not just established “probable cause;” it has met its burden of proof on the entire case.
The burden has now shifted to the Rittenhouse team to establish the elements of their affirmative defense. If they fail to do so, they lose the case, and Rittenhouse goes to prison.
So, screw all that innocent until proven guilty crap, right? People were killed, so they’ve met their burden of proof. Pretty sure the burden of proof still lies on the prosecution to prove that it wasn’t justified, and therefore criminal.
If someone walks up in the courtroom tomorrow and pulls a gun on the judge and the bailiff kills him, is the case made and the bailiff up on charges? No. Doesn’t work that way.
Posted on 11/3/21 at 8:53 pm to DingLeeBerry
quote:
CNN isn’t trying to sway the jury. They are trying to mislead the American public.
Good thing their viewership gets smaller by the day.
Posted on 11/3/21 at 8:57 pm to Centinel
quote:
It's Hank.
Unless aTm just specializes in pompous know-it-all attorneys who constantly have to feel like the smartest guy in the room, I’d say this is spot on.
Posted on 11/3/21 at 9:01 pm to troyt37
quote:You are mistaken. I cited the relevant Wisconsin statute in the other thread. The burden of proof is not complex, but rather a matter of black letter law. Again:
Pretty sure the burden of proof still lies on the prosecution to prove that it wasn’t justified, and therefore criminal.
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.
When a defendant successfully makes self-defense an issue, the jury must be instructed as to the state's burden of proof regarding the nature of the crime, even if the defense is a negative defense. Wisconsin JI-Criminal 801 informs the jury that it “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] conduct did not create an unreasonable risk to another." This instruction implies that the defendant must satisfy the jury that the defendant was acting in self-defense and removes the burden of proof from the state to show that the defendant was engaged in criminally reckless conduct. State v. Austin, 2013 WI App 96, 349 Wis. 2d 744, 836 N.W.2d 833, 12-0011.
In the fewest possible words:
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.
the State has to prove he killed someone. They have done that. Rittenhouse has to prove it was justified. He will do so.
Locke
This post was edited on 11/3/21 at 9:28 pm
Posted on 11/3/21 at 9:13 pm to LockeNLoad
quote:
Locke
Hey Locke, would you mind not adding "Locke" to every post? John Locke would decree that you're a pretentious dick if he saw your posting.
Shaft
Posted on 11/3/21 at 9:22 pm to LockeNLoad
LETS GO AGGIES !!!
LETS GO AGGIES!!!
Hanke
LETS GO AGGIES!!!
Hanke
Posted on 11/3/21 at 9:24 pm to Vols&Shaft83
Lawyers are democrats in sheep’s clothing.
Posted on 11/3/21 at 9:56 pm to LockeNLoad
quote:No, you’re a frickin retard.
You are mistaken.
Again, if someone walks up to you and pulls a gun and fires at you, then you pull a gun and shoot them dead, there is no goddamn probable cause for a prosecutor to charge you with murder.
And then, if the prosecutor hides the video of the entire ordeal, then tries to conceal that the dead guy had a gun and fired at you for the purpose of fabricating probable cause… this is textbook malicious prosecution.
Now shut the frick up, Hank, you cock gobbling thunder kunt.
This post was edited on 11/3/21 at 9:57 pm
Posted on 11/3/21 at 10:01 pm to LockeNLoad
quote:
Because the prosecution only has to establish “probable cause“ on the homicide. To establish “probable cause,” they do not have to negate any affirmative defense that the Defendant might raise, in order to avoid liability for malicious prosecution.
So, what is the “probable cause” on homicide? He killed two people. Everyone in the court room has admitted that, including the Defendant’s own attorney. That matter is not even IN ISSUE. The state has not just established “probable cause;” it has met its burden of proof on the entire case.
The burden has now shifted to the Rittenhouse team to establish the elements of their affirmative defense. If they fail to do so, they lose the case, and Rittenhouse goes to prison.
I think the Defense will do so, but that has absolutely nothing to do with the validity of a malicious prosecution claim. “Probable cause” on the homicide charge is utterly and completely independent of the validity of the affirmative defense.
Your downvotes simply confirm that you are posting from emotion rather than from even the most rudimentary effort to understand the issues.
That's cute.
You honestly think anything you wrote applies in today's climate? Lol.
Posted on 11/3/21 at 10:02 pm to BeefDawg
quote:
No, you’re a frickin retard.
You sir are correct.
Posted on 11/3/21 at 10:50 pm to LockeNLoad
quote:
Pretty sure the burden of proof still lies on the prosecution to prove that it wasn’t justified, and therefore criminal.
quote:
You are mistaken. I cited the relevant Wisconsin statute in the other thread. The burden of proof is not complex, but rather a matter of black letter law. Again:
When a defendant successfully makes self-defense an issue, the jury must be instructed as to the state's burden of proof regarding the nature of the crime, even if the defense is a negative defense. Wisconsin JI-Criminal 801 informs the jury that it “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] conduct did not create an unreasonable risk to another." This instruction implies that the defendant must satisfy the jury that the defendant was acting in self-defense and removes the burden of proof from the state to show that the defendant was engaged in criminally reckless conduct. State v. Austin, 2013 WI App 96, 349 Wis. 2d 744, 836 N.W.2d 833, 12-0011.
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.
In the fewest possible words:
the State has to prove he killed someone. They have done that. Rittenhouse has to prove it was justified. He will do so.
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.
Locke
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.
Wisconsin Law Library
Posted on 11/3/21 at 11:01 pm to teke184
quote:
I think the judge is about to tell this idiot “Come up with something or I’m going for a directed verdict.”
I’m definitely making a motion for summary if I’m the defense. We had a case recently where a “woke” DA tried to railroad some cops. They ended up impeaching their own damn witness
After the prosecution rested we motioned for summary and got it. Never even called our own witnesses or presented our case. It was beautiful 
Page 6 of 24
Popular
Back to top
Follow TigerDroppings for LSU Football News