Violent riots underway in Kenosha, WI

[Arctish]

A hit in the back isn't enough to disprove a self defense claim. (People can turn to flee faster than people can make the shoot/no-shoot decision. Hence you get bad guys who had an oh-shit-he's-armed realization, try to flee and get shot before the shooter realizes it's over.) Thus I do not find this credible.

Someone claiming self-defenses needs to prove it. Proving a negative is not possible.

I believe, actually, that the onus is on the prosecution to prove beyond a reasonable doubt that the use of force was unjustified. Proving a negative, in the logical, philosophical sense, is problematic. But these sorts of things exist in courts of law all the time.

In the Anglo-American tradition, the onus is on the prosecution.

The onus is on the defense when it argues self defense. This quote is from a newsletter published by a law firm, but it matches what the Wisconsin statutes say:

Wisconsin Court Clarifies New Self-Defense Rule

Self-defense is an affirmative defense that a person accused of a violent crime can bring, arguing that their use of force was justified because they were defending themselves. Wisconsin law allows deadly force in self-defense in the limited circumstances where the person defending themselves “reasonably believes that such force is necessary to prevent imminent death or great bodily harm” to their person. Importantly, some states impose a duty to retreat from a conflict, but Wisconsin is not among them. However, Wisconsin does allow juries to consider whether a defendant could have retreated in determining whether the use of deadly force was “necessary.”<link>.

A person claiming self defense has to support their claim. Rittenhouse's lawyers might be able to do that. The video and Rittenhouse's age lend credibility to a claim he feared he would suffer great bodily harm or might even be killed if he didn't shoot. But it might not be easy. A lot depends on what happened that caused Rosenbaum to start chasing Rittenhouse.

Also, it looks like Huber and Grosskreutz were attempting to disarm Rittenhouse, and that Rittenhouse knew people were trying to take his weapon after he shot Rosenbaum. That could undermine his claims of self defense for shooting those two, but again, his age might be a deciding factor.

 

[fromderinside]

Departments must do their jobs and protect the public rather than their own hides.

Seems to me this one is pretty much in the dumper since not one of the teams pulled the perp back from going off the deep end when they "choked" and murdered the black person. If they can't do things in real time how the hell can anyone expect them to do the right thing in sphincter suction time after they wake up and realize just how fucking awful they performed their jobs.

 

[Angra Mainyu]

A person claiming self defense has to support their claim.

Suppose a defendant in a murder case claims self-defense but does not argue for it. Instead, he just says that the evidence will speak for itself.
Suppose after the prosecutors have made their case, on the basis of all of the evidence, arguments, etc., all jurors reasonably have doubts as to whether it was self-defense.

What should the jurors legally do? (i.e., what should they do in order to comply with their legal duties, moral questions aside? ).

I am no legal expert. But if the answer is not that they should vote to acquit the defendant, the law is pretty unjust in that regard. I would even guess it might be unconstitutional, though that part is tentative as I do not know that much about constitutional law.

 

[Arctish]

A person claiming self defense has to support their claim.

Suppose a defendant in a murder case claims self-defense but does not argue for it. Instead, he just says that the evidence will speak for itself.
Suppose after the prosecutors have made their case, on the basis of all of the evidence, arguments, etc., all jurors reasonably have doubts as to whether it was self-defense.

What should the jurors legally do? (i.e., what should they do in order to comply with their legal duties, moral questions aside? ).

I am no legal expert. But if the answer is not that they should vote to acquit the defendant, the law is pretty unjust in that regard. I would even guess it might be unconstitutional, though that part is tentative as I do not know that much about constitutional law.

If the jurors reasonably have doubts as to whether it was self-defense, they should not conclude that it was self defense. That does not mean they must therefore conclude that it was first- or second-degree murder. The jurors might have reasonable doubts about the Prosecution's claims as well. If so, then the correct verdict is Not Guilty, due to the presumption of innocence given to the accused in the US. judicial system.

I'm no expert, but it appears to me that people argue self defense when there is no question that they killed someone, and they're trying to justify the killing. IOW, they admit they committed a homicide, and they're trying to avoid being convicted of doing it deliberately or with depraved indifference. That's why they have to be pro-active. They can't just sit there while the Prosecution proves beyond a reasonable doubt they killed the victim.

 

[Loren Pechtel]

A hit in the back isn't enough to disprove a self defense claim. (People can turn to flee faster than people can make the shoot/no-shoot decision. Hence you get bad guys who had an oh-shit-he's-armed realization, try to flee and get shot before the shooter realizes it's over.) Thus I do not find this credible.

Someone claiming self-defenses needs to prove it. Proving a negative is not possible.

No--you need enough for reasonable doubt, you don't need proof.

 

[Loren Pechtel]

I believe, actually, that the onus is on the prosecution to prove beyond a reasonable doubt that the use of force was unjustified. Proving a negative, in the logical, philosophical sense, is problematic. But these sorts of things exist in courts of law all the time.

In the Anglo-American tradition, the onus is on the prosecution.

Police officers must report and justify every single time they draw their weapon. Departments must do their jobs and protect the public rather than their own hides.

And what's the evidence that there's a problem with police drawing their weapons when they shouldn't?

 

[laughing dog]

A hit in the back isn't enough to disprove a self defense claim. (People can turn to flee faster than people can make the shoot/no-shoot decision. Hence you get bad guys who had an oh-shit-he's-armed realization, try to flee and get shot before the shooter realizes it's over.) Thus I do not find this credible.

Someone claiming self-defenses needs to prove it. Proving a negative is not possible.

No--you need enough for reasonable doubt, you don't need proof.

This is not a court of law. But a handwaved "Waah, I'm a coward" should not be reasonable doubt for any decent human being.

 

[Toni]

I believe, actually, that the onus is on the prosecution to prove beyond a reasonable doubt that the use of force was unjustified. Proving a negative, in the logical, philosophical sense, is problematic. But these sorts of things exist in courts of law all the time.

In the Anglo-American tradition, the onus is on the prosecution.

Police officers must report and justify every single time they draw their weapon. Departments must do their jobs and protect the public rather than their own hides.

And what's the evidence that there's a problem with police drawing their weapons when they shouldn't?

This is a sick joke, right? Do I really need to list the many unarmed people who have been shot by police?

How about I just start with Tamir Rice, who, in the call to the police, was identified as a child most likely playing with a toy gun which seemed to disturb absolutely no one as can be seen in the video footage of his murder.

 

[Loren Pechtel]

And what's the evidence that there's a problem with police drawing their weapons when they shouldn't?

This is a sick joke, right? Do I really need to list the many unarmed people who have been shot by police?

How about I just start with Tamir Rice, who, in the call to the police, was identified as a child most likely playing with a toy gun which seemed to disturb absolutely no one as can be seen in the video footage of his murder.

In other words, you don't understand the problem. This is not a problem with drawing weapons improperly, this is a problem with coming to an incorrect conclusion when faced with a split-second life-or-death decision. The law doesn't care whether the weapon was real or a realistic replica, draw on the police and expect to die. Ditching a gun looks enough like drawing it that it's going to get the same response.

The real problem here is kids with realistic toy guns. I have no problem with toy guns that are obvious toys, but nobody should be messing with the realistic ones without understanding proper firearm handling unless they are in a supervised environment. (I have no problem with kids playing with Airsoft guns in a situation set up for it, but they shouldn't be doing it elsewhere.)

 

[marc]

And what's the evidence that there's a problem with police drawing their weapons when they shouldn't?

This is a sick joke, right? Do I really need to list the many unarmed people who have been shot by police?

How about I just start with Tamir Rice, who, in the call to the police, was identified as a child most likely playing with a toy gun which seemed to disturb absolutely no one as can be seen in the video footage of his murder.

In other words, you don't understand the problem. This is not a problem with drawing weapons improperly, this is a problem with coming to an incorrect conclusion when faced with a split-second life-or-death decision.

But there was no ‘split-second life-or-death’ decision. There are plenty of times police are able to come up on an actual armed and dangerous person without the need to immediately open fire. They made a decision to kill before finding out what the situation actually was.

The law doesn't care whether the weapon was real or a realistic replica, draw on the police and expect to die. Ditching a gun looks enough like drawing it that it's going to get the same response.

And Rice did neither of those things. He wasn’t given a chance to do anything, either a stupid move or even a smart one like putting his hands up. He was shot before he could react.

 

[marc]

 

[Derec]

Really. I have to tell my Indian friends that they are all white, especially those from south India. That should get a laugh.

I said Caucasian. Many Indians are like dark Caucasians, having Caucasian features but darker skin.

 

[Derec]

Seriously: Most people I know who are of South Indian descent do not refer to themselves as white in the US, and where I grew up,

South Indian, no; they tend to look darker. But some Indians do look white.

they would certainly not be considered white, nor would Arabs or Persians--no matter how light their skin.

That's just stupid. They are as white as say Italians or Greeks. It is stupid for say Rashida Tlaib or Linda the Cockroach to claim "person of color" status just because of their religion.

Most Arabs and Persians I know consider themselves white except compared with US whites.

Most Persians and Arabs are white though.

As far as your anti-Native American garbage spew, thanks for proving my point.

It's not "anti-Native American" and it certainly is not "garbage spew". I was just pointing out the privileges American Indians (aka "Siberian Americans" because that's where they come from originally) have just by virtue of their race and ethnicity. For example, did you know they can free tuition at any state school in Michigan? That's a clear violation of the 14th Amendment, but because it favors a politically correct race, such privileges are not only accepted, but it is even denied that Indians are privileged and instead the myth that Indians are somehow oppressed in the US persists.

 

[Derec]

To get back to St. Jacob Blake, he appeared via Zoom for his arraignment. He plead not guilty.
Jacob Blake pleads not guilty to charges in domestic incident

 

[laughing dog]

South Indian, no; they tend to look darker. But some Indians do look white.


That's just stupid. They are as white as say Italians or Greeks. It is stupid for say Rashida Tlaib or Linda the Cockroach to claim "person of color" status just because of their religion.

Most Arabs and Persians I know consider themselves white except compared with US whites.

Most Persians and Arabs are white though.

As far as your anti-Native American garbage spew, thanks for proving my point.

It's not "anti-Native American" and it certainly is not "garbage spew". I was just pointing out the privileges American Indians (aka "Siberian Americans" because that's where they come from originally) have just by virtue of their race and ethnicity. For example, did you know they can free tuition at any state school in Michigan? That's a clear violation of the 14th Amendment, but because it favors a politically correct race, such privileges are not only accepted, but it is even denied that Indians are privileged and instead the myth that Indians are somehow oppressed in the US persists.

Your obsession with race is duly noted.

The reality of Native Americans is that while some tribes and their members are wealthy, many are not. And wealth does not mean there may not be discrimination based on skin color or race.

There are places in the US where Native Americans are viewed as inferior and discriminated against.

Whether the alt-right, racists, bigots and their dupes wish to admit it or not, Native Americans have treaty rights because they have been historically viewed and treated as sovereign nations. No amount of outrage, posturing or downright ignorance changes that reality.

 

[Toni]

South Indian, no; they tend to look darker. But some Indians do look white.


That's just stupid. They are as white as say Italians or Greeks. It is stupid for say Rashida Tlaib or Linda the Cockroach to claim "person of color" status just because of their religion.

Most Arabs and Persians I know consider themselves white except compared with US whites.

Most Persians and Arabs are white though.

As far as your anti-Native American garbage spew, thanks for proving my point.

It's not "anti-Native American" and it certainly is not "garbage spew". I was just pointing out the privileges American Indians (aka "Siberian Americans" because that's where they come from originally) have just by virtue of their race and ethnicity. For example, did you know they can free tuition at any state school in Michigan? That's a clear violation of the 14th Amendment, but because it favors a politically correct race, such privileges are not only accepted, but it is even denied that Indians are privileged and instead the myth that Indians are somehow oppressed in the US persists.

You are incorrect in absolutely every 'response.'

 

[Derec]

You are incorrect in absolutely every 'response.'

Except that it is exactly the opposite.

 

[Derec]

Your obsession with race is duly noted.

It is not I who is obsessed here.

There are places in the US where Native Americans are viewed as inferior and discriminated against.

But under government policy they are discriminated in favor of.

Whether the alt-right, racists, bigots and their dupes wish to admit it or not, Native Americans have treaty rights because they have been historically viewed and treated as sovereign nations. No amount of outrage, posturing or downright ignorance changes that reality.

This tribal sovereignty nonsense is the biggest mistake US jurisprudence ever made. They can cherry-pick when to be considered part of US or not based on what gives them benefits - part of US when it comes to having state or federal government build infrastructure or pay largess but not part of the US when it comes to paying taxes or following laws. If they want sovereignty they should seek independence and pay their own way. If they want to be part of the US, then they should be treated as any other American, no better, no worse.

 

[laughing dog]

It is not I who is obsessed here.

You are the one spouting off about alleged racial discrimination and putting ethnicities into color boxes.

But under government policy they are discriminated in favor of.

That is your opinion that is driven by a complete disregard of history and treaty rights.

This tribal sovereignty nonsense is the biggest mistake US jurisprudence ever made....

Too bad for you - it is reality and sets precedence. As far as your "cherry picking" observation - any outcomes are either based on treaty rights or mutual agreements with local, state or federal governments. If a locality or state thinks it is in its best interests to reach such agreements, they do not need the approval of SJWs like yourself.

I am surprised that a such a loud "law and order" proponent is so disparaging of adherence to the law of the land. It appears your view is that the law should only be enforced against people of color and in favor of white people.


I recall the display of vicious racism in my region when Native Americans asserted their fishing rights under their treaty. That and your opinions are evidence that there is still a vibrant strand of bigotry and racism towards Native Americans.

 

[Derec]

You are the one spouting off about alleged racial discrimination and putting ethnicities into color boxes.

I am merely responding to the left-wing obsession with race. It is the Left that wants to treat people differently based on their race.

That is your opinion that is driven by a complete disregard of history and treaty rights.

Treaties should not trump the constitution, specifically the 14th Amendment.

Too bad for you - it is reality and sets precedence.

Just because it is current reality does not mean that it wasn't a collosal mistake. For the US, sure, but also for the Indians.

I am surprised that a such a loud "law and order" proponent is so disparaging of adherence to the law of the land.

Just because something is current law does not mean it is a good law or that it should not change. This is a political discussion forum. We discuss changes to laws all the time. But you get all butthurt if somebody suggests these stupid Indian laws should be changed.

It appears your view is that the law should only be enforced against people of color and in favor of white people.

No. Law should be race-neutral. If I apply to a university, I should not be discriminated against for my race. Same goes if I should find an eagle feather.

I recall the display of vicious racism in my region when Native Americans asserted their fishing rights under their treaty. That and your opinions are evidence that there is still a vibrant strand of bigotry and racism towards Native Americans.

Being upset over one group of people getting special rights because of their race is not "bigotry and racism". It's people being pissed about being discriminated against.