What should be the correct legal verdict in the Rittenhouse case?

[SixFoot]

Not guilty on all counts, and I didn’t even waste anytime in college understanding how.

[WuWei]

@TheDoctorIsIn

@WuWei

Perhaps you should leave criminal law to those of us who actually understand it.

I think I’ve figured it out.

Obviously not.

[TheDoctorIsIn]

@WuWei

Obviously not.

No, I did. It explains everything.

It’s ok.

[Samm]

@TheDoctorIsIn

@Samm

One cannot jump on the bandwagon in a public forum. Particularly when they have been engaged in the thread from the beginning.

Of course they can. The thread is all here, just click the little arrows.

So what bandwagon did I jump on?

[Samm]

@WuWei

Bandwagon jumping is a way of life here.

If you say so. I call it participating in a group discussion.

[TheDoctorIsIn]

@Samm

So what bandwagon did I jump on?

This one:

@DougBH

Clearly you haven’t seen the trial. You are imagining a situation where Rittenhouse dressed up in order to outrage protesters, lure them off to the side and pick them off as they came after him. Even the prosecutors have made no such argument.

[Samm]

@TheDoctorIsIn

@Samm

So what bandwagon did I jump on?

This one:

@DougBH

Clearly you haven’t seen the trial. You are imagining a situation where Rittenhouse dressed up in order to outrage protesters, lure them off to the side and pick them off as they came after him. Even the prosecutors have made no such argument.

Yep … A comment regarding Rittenhouse. Check the thread topic.

[TheDoctorIsIn]

@Samm

Yep … A comment regarding Rittenhouse. Check the thread topic.

Well, yes. But the post Doug was responding to - my post - was not about Rittenhouse.

That’s the point.

[Samm]

So?
…

[TheDoctorIsIn]

@Samm

So?
…

I don’t know, you tell me. You’re the one who jumped in.

[Eagle-Keeper]

@TheDoctorIsIn

To be very clear - I am not arguing that the whole Rittenhouse thing falls under any of these exceptions.

Just trying to explain the law.

Let me focus on the aspect of the burden of proof. Is the primary burden of proof for the prosecution related to the argument that a self-defense plea does not apply?

[Samm]

@TheDoctorIsIn

@Samm

So?
…

I don’t know, you tell me. You’re the one who jumped in.

No I didn’t. I’m part of the same conversation you are.

[TheDoctorIsIn]

@Eagle-Keeper

Let me focus on the aspect of the burden of proof. Is the primary burden of proof for the prosecution related to the argument that a self-defense plea does not apply?

I’ll preface this with - as many less polite posters have pointed out - I’m not a criminal lawyer, and every state is different.

In a general sense, self-defense is an affirmative defense - as in, the party claiming self defense has the burden of proving it. Once that burden is met, the prosecution then has the burden of proving the exemption.

[conan]

As a prosecutor?

[Ben_Natuf]

no, rittenhouse was attempting to run away and thug ass was chasing him.

[TheDoctorIsIn]

@Ben_Natuf

no, rittenhouse was attempting to run away and thug ass was chasing him.

That’s one narrative.

[TheDoctorIsIn]

@conan

As a prosecutor?

It would be a prosecutor’s job, sure. But I’m definitely not a prosecutor.

[Supreme_War_Pig]

@TheDoctorIsIn

@conan

As a prosecutor?

It would be a prosecutor’s job, sure. But I’m definitely not a prosecutor.

I would just like to tell you that I find your patience admirable.

[Samm]

@TheDoctorIsIn

@Ben_Natuf

no, rittenhouse was attempting to run away and thug ass was chasing him.

That’s one narrative.

It’s the only true narrative. Even the prosecutor didn’t deny that.

[WuWei]

@TheDoctorIsIn

In a general sense, self-defense is an affirmative defense - as in, the party claiming self defense has the burden of proving it. Once that burden is met, the prosecution then has the burden of proving the exemption

Which is ass backwards