- 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
re: Kyle Rittenhouse Trial - Day 4 (made the thread title more accurate)
Posted on 11/4/21 at 10:44 am to Godfather1
Posted on 11/4/21 at 10:44 am to Godfather1
quote:
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.
How many aggies have you met?
Every one of them thinks they are superior to all others. Even if they don't outwardly say it. It's part of the cult brainwashing.
0
Posted on 11/4/21 at 10:54 am to LockeNLoad
For anyone who doubts that this a-hole is an aggieHank alter, he's telegraphing it right there in his signature:
Aren't alters a bannable offense???
quote:
LockeNLoad
quote:
"Personal Identity depends upon Consciousness, not upon Substance.... As far as this consciousness can be extended backwards ... so far reaches the identity...." Essay on Human Understanding
Aren't alters a bannable offense???
Posted on 11/4/21 at 10:56 am to TygerTyger
Prosecutor bringing race into this now. Garbage arse prosecutor
Posted on 11/4/21 at 10:59 am to Vols&Shaft83
quote:Always giving it to us...
Shaft
Posted on 11/4/21 at 11:01 am to LockeNLoad
quote:
You say that we have interacted in the past, but I have absolutely no recollection whatsoever of your existence.
Of course not, because you are brand new to the board, just registered 10/26/2021. My mistake, I had you confused with this other poster, AggieHank. God, he was insufferable! You are so lucky to have joined after it appears he has stopped posting.
Posted on 11/4/21 at 11:03 am to RogerTheShrubber
Hank isn’t a practicing attorney
I imagine he was one of the dorks in law school who raised his hand every class in 1L constitutional law only to get into the private sector and realize he’s not cut out for it
I imagine he was one of the dorks in law school who raised his hand every class in 1L constitutional law only to get into the private sector and realize he’s not cut out for it
Posted on 11/4/21 at 11:07 am to Dawgfan247
quote:
Prosecutor bringing race into this now. Garbage arse prosecutor
exactly how is that relevant?
Pretty sure all the "victims" are white
Posted on 11/4/21 at 11:11 am to udtiger
quote:
Binger: Having AR incompatible with being a medic or fire brigade?
Don't Army medics carry firearms?
Posted on 11/4/21 at 11:13 am to CAD703X
I like this judge
Posted on 11/4/21 at 11:14 am to udtiger
And didn’t one of the victims throw the n-word AT rittenhouse?
Posted on 11/4/21 at 11:24 am to LSUnation78
This witness is really helpful to Rittenhouse. Why would the prosecution use someone from the Daily Caller as a State witness? They don't think he might be sympathetic to Rittenhouse and not provide great testimony for the State?
Posted on 11/4/21 at 11:32 am to MFn GIMP
I was just thinking that this witness isn’t really hurting the defense.
Posted on 11/4/21 at 11:38 am to Wolfhound45
quote:
Why create a new online presence and act the same exact way?
umm...so he can swoop in and agree with himself?
Posted on 11/4/21 at 11:40 am to TDTOM
quote:
I was just thinking that this witness isn’t really hurting the defense.
The ADA seems to be aware of that now and seems like he is trying to impeach his own witness.
This post was edited on 11/4/21 at 11:41 am
Posted on 11/4/21 at 11:42 am to MFn GIMP
quote:
Don't Army medics carry firearms?
Typically sidearms, but yes.
Chaplains' assistants carry rifles, though.
Posted on 11/4/21 at 11:44 am to MFn GIMP
This ADA is downright terrible
Posted on 11/4/21 at 11:44 am to MFn GIMP
The weasel prosecutor tried to get the Daily Caller witness to trip up on his description of the Rosenbaum shooting.... on Tucker, last year, the Daily Caller guy said Rosenbaum was falling forward when Kyle shot him...
But the witness did a great job of clarifying his words... saying that falling/lunging were synonymous to him at the time... maybe not in webster's dictionary...but he stood his ground and the weasel looked stupid.
But the witness did a great job of clarifying his words... saying that falling/lunging were synonymous to him at the time... maybe not in webster's dictionary...but he stood his ground and the weasel looked stupid.
Posted on 11/4/21 at 11:49 am to MFn GIMP
The DA knows he doesn’t have a case. None of the evidence and none of the witnesses back up their case. Seems to me he is trying to thread the needle and pray it works. We just spent 30 minutes going over the witnesses location, what he saw, what he heard, and live video of the moments leading up to the shooting and at the end he’s completely hung up on whether Rosenbum was falling, was he shot after he fell, blah blah blah. It’s a weak attempt to say disregard everything you’ve seen or heard so far from this witness and focus on whether or not Kyle shot him before or after he fell because of he shot him as he fell then it’s murder. No it’s not!! He could have fallen flat on his face, jumped up and continued the attack. Falling after you lunge for a weapon does not eliminate you as a threat.
Posted on 11/4/21 at 11:49 am to MFn GIMP
quote:
The ADA seems to be aware of that now and seems like he is trying to impeach his own witness.
When you have to do this…. It’s not going very well at ALL. He was even leading him with questions and finally had to be scolded to not comment on the testimony.
It looks like this clown has a loooooooong career in the DA’s office because he would go bankrupt in the private.
Posted on 11/4/21 at 12:14 pm to LockeNLoad
quote:
In any case, the authority you are citing is related to an “imperfect“ self-defense claim, as opposed to a “perfect“ self-defense claim.
The authority that I'm citing is Wisconsin Jury Instruction 801, which is the statute you originally cited. So I'm quoting the statute that you referenced, I simply included the next sentence.
quote:
I would also know that the language upon what you rely is simply a report from a state bar committee regarding jury instructions
"The language upon what I rely" is pulled directly from the Wisconsin State Law Library.
Wisconsin Law Library - Criminal Jury Instruction 801
quote:
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 case you cited was State vs Austin. The comments on JI 801 include:
quote:
6. The last two sentences of this paragraph were added in 2014 in response to the decision in State
v. Austin, 2013 WI App 96, 349 Wis.2d 744, 836 N.W.2d 833, in which the court of appeals ordered a
new trial for a person convicted of 2nd degree recklessly endangering safety. The court held that the jury
instructions given in that case – which followed the pattern suggested by Wis JI-Criminal 801 – were
deficient because they did not specifically state that the prosecution must prove the absence of selfdefense once raised. The first of the added sentences is intended to make that requirement clear. The
second added sentence is intended to emphasize that even if the state succeeds in proving the absence of
self-defense, the jury still must be satisfied by all the evidence that the defendant’s conduct created an
unreasonable risk of death or great bodily harm.
The appellate court sided with Austin stating
quote:
We agree with Austin's fundamental argument that the jury was not properly instructed and, in the interests of justice, we reverse and remand the matter for a new trial.
LINK to State vs Austin case text
The appellate court determined the jury instructions were erroneous because they didn't make it clear that the burden of proof was on the state to disprove self defense. So they updated the jury instructions to include "The burden is on the state to prove beyond a reasonable doubt that the defendant did not act lawfully in self-defense. And, you must be satisfied beyond a reasonable
doubt from all the evidence in the case that the risk was unreasonable."
quote:
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.
You go into detailed explanations of perfect vs imperfect self defense and affirmative vs negative defense, but none of that matters because the Wisconsin appellate court says:
quote:
The Committee's explanation notwithstanding, we believe that 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. See Schulz, 102 Wis.2d at 429–30, 307 N.W.2d 151 (if defense is attack on element of crime, “the [S]tate bears the burden of proving this element beyond a reasonable doubt” and when a negative defense is asserted, “the burden of persuasion cannot be placed upon the defendant without violating his right to due process”); see also State v. Pettit, 171 Wis.2d 627, 640, 492 N.W.2d 633 (Ct.App.1992) (If a defendant successfully raises a negative defense, “the burden is upon the [S]tate to prove beyond a reasonable doubt that defendant's evidence did not negate an element necessary to convict.”).
Either way, the burden of proof is on the state to DISPROVE self defense. Which is the exact opposite of what you originally stated, that Wisconsin was not a state with such a requirement.
Page 9 of 24
Popular
Back to top
Follow TigerDroppings for LSU Football News