home
Rittenhouse's Counsel: Defending a Client, Not a Cause | 161 comments (161 topical)

Readers Must Login or Create an Account to Comment

The self-defense (1.00 / 1) (#48)
by jondee on Wed Nov 24, 2021 at 10:59:41 AM EST
was when the armed-and-threatening jag-off got slammed to the pavement.

Losing the fight doesn't magically make you a non-instigator, counselor.

Parent

Under the traditional American definition (none / 0) (#49)
by Peter G on Wed Nov 24, 2021 at 12:06:20 PM EST
of self-defense, which prevailed for two hundred years until various forces of reaction (in my view) got to work on those laws through state legislatures in the 1990s and since, was that the privilege of self-defense was lost to anyone who was an unjustified first aggressor. "Unjustified" means not having a subjectively genuine and objectively reasonable fear of being the victim of (unjustified) deadly force, or disregarding an available avenue of safe retreat. I always thought that rule struck a reasonable moral balance that discouraged violence. I honestly don't see how any version of that rule (and especially not its watered-down contemporary versions) can work in a society that allows widespread civilian carrying of firearms, either open or concealed.

Parent
Self-Defense (none / 0) (#57)
by ladybug on Wed Nov 24, 2021 at 03:02:37 PM EST
Your comment is one of the more measured ones in this thread, and so I am curious if you agree that Rittenhouse had a valid self-defense claim. Also Zimmerman. People may have strong feelings about these cases, but the jury did find self-defense beyond a reasonable doubt based on the evidence. Zimmerman and Rittenhouse were being attacked.  Isn't the system working?

Parent
I have no reason to question the jury verdict (4.00 / 3) (#62)
by Peter G on Wed Nov 24, 2021 at 03:35:09 PM EST
The jurors heard all the evidence over days of trial. I did not. Therefore I have no opinion of my own about the KR verdict. But BCinGA is right, the jury did not "find self defense beyond a reasonable doubt." The verdict means that the jury was left with reasonable doubt that KR may have acted in self-defense, as defined under the very pro-accused Wisconsin statute. That's all it means, which required an acquittal. All of which has nothing to do with Zimmerman. I see no connection and little similarity between the two cases.

Parent
The system is working (none / 0) (#63)
by ladybug on Wed Nov 24, 2021 at 03:57:20 PM EST
If I understood you right, I was responding to your comment about how the self-defense rules have changed, and how much more difficult it is to  determine self-defense now that so many people armed, even at mostly peaceful protests (although of course cars and skateboards and fists can inflict much damage too). The similarity for  Rittenhouse and Zimmerman was that they used guns to stop the attacks. Of course, there were differences too and Rittenhouse had three different circumstances with three different attackers. But the system worked. I guess that was my question and you have answered it.

Parent
Unfortunately (5.00 / 3) (#67)
by FlJoe on Wed Nov 24, 2021 at 04:25:31 PM EST
the system working, often does not equate to justice served and it always seems to "work" better for certain types of people.


Parent
the jury did find self-defense beyond a reasonable (none / 0) (#58)
by BGinCA on Wed Nov 24, 2021 at 03:14:41 PM EST
I think you have this backwards. The jury found that the prosecution  did not prove beyond a reasonable doubt that KR was not exercising his right of self defense. If the burden of proof were on KR there may have been a different outcome.

Parent
Thank you! (none / 0) (#61)
by ladybug on Wed Nov 24, 2021 at 03:27:09 PM EST
Yes, I had that wrong. Obviously I am not a lawyer and appreciate all the lawyers' takes on this case!

Parent
So (none / 0) (#65)
by FlJoe on Wed Nov 24, 2021 at 04:15:40 PM EST
in essence the prosecution would have to "prove a negative" to win a conviction.

Parent
That's interesting (none / 0) (#66)
by ladybug on Wed Nov 24, 2021 at 04:24:51 PM EST
And yet I believe that self-defense is called an affirmative defense?

Parent
There are affirmative defenses, and then (none / 0) (#77)
by Peter G on Wed Nov 24, 2021 at 06:18:16 PM EST
there are affirmative defenses. Self-defense appears to be an "affirmative defense" in Wisconsin only in the sense that the prosecution need not disprove it until and unless the defense adduces at least "some" evidence to put the issue in contention. This is called "the burden of going forward." The burden of proof then shifts back to the prosecutor to disprove self-defense beyond a reasonable doubt. A full-scale, old-fashioned affirmative defense (prior to the "reformed" version introduced in the 1960s) would require the defendant to prove all the requirements of a valid self-defense claim by a preponderance of the evidence. The US Supreme Court ruled in 1987 that that formula is not unconstitutional. So it is up to each state to decide how to formulate the terms of the defense in their own law.

Parent

Rittenhouse's Counsel: Defending a Client, Not a Cause | 161 comments (161 topical)

Readers Must Login or Create an Account to Comment

  • The Online Magazine with Liberal coverage of crime-related political and injustice news

  • Contribute To TalkLeft