Board 8 > Politics Containment Topic 381: Attack On Rittenhouse

(+) Yeah! (+)

PrivateBiscuit1 posted...

. Tl;Dr is the prosecutor sucks,

Consider me unsurprised
---

So Marisa Alexander case. I told you guys there was probably more to it, fair or not, and there is.

Marisa Alexander was threatened by her abusive POS husband and she had admitted to firing a "warning shot" that was close to her husband's head, and it had deflected and went upwards. This could have easily been deflected down too, or any various other directions. What makes that worse is that their children were close by as well, putting them in danger. Don't fire warning shots, period.

As such, this meant that 3 people were in danger of her warning shot, which means she got three charges of aggravated assault with a deadly weapon, which would be where everyone is getting the 1 year punishment. Because of the three counts, the Prosecutor offered her a plea deal for 3 years minimum. Marisa denied it, claiming she was acting in self defense.

The trial went ahead with the Prosecutor claiming that she was acting in anger, not in self defense, and that she had intended to kill her husband and kids in anger. She argued it was self defense, but the Prosecutor argued if it was self defense then she wouldn't have shot her husband, the assailant. It took 12 minutes for a jury to convict her.

Where the 20 years comes is from a "lovely" law Florida previously had called the 10-20-Life law. It ties the Judge's hands that if a gun is involved, they must have a minimum sentence of these punishments.

10 years for having a gun with a felony
20 years for discharging a gun with a felony
Life for shooting someone and hitting with a felony

If you're looking at this and saying "This seems to lack any kind of nuance." You'd be right! Supposedly this has helped with gun violence in Florida. But since it's an awful law, they've since gotten rid of it.

So because she was found guilty of discharging a gun, and aggravated assault with a deadly weapon is a felony, she was charged for 20 years because a jury had found her guilty.

Now how did a jury find her guilty? Remember those Jury Instructions I talked about with the Rittenhouse trial? Well bizarrely, somehow someway, the instructions the jury received shifted the burden of proof FROM the Prosecution and to the Defendant (Marisa), meaning they now had to prove without any doubt that she was acting in self-defense. Since the jury felt there wasn't any concrete proof of this, they found her guilty. Complete nonsense how a Defense attorney let this happen.

However, because of this, it was appealed. When you appeal, you have to appeal that something, some way had gone wrong with the court process. So they agreed that since the burden of proof was bizarrely sent to the Defendant than the Prosecution, they would overturn the decision.

That's not it though. The Prosecutor said she would now charge each of the three aggravated assault charges separately, and that it would result in three 20-year convictions should she lose. Fortunately, Marisa got a lot more help this time around in every aspect you could and the Prosecutor had no case. Because she already served 3 years, she plead guilty for the plea deal we saw earlier for 3 years, with an added house arrest for 2 years. The alternative was going to a trial again and you never want to risk a jury deciding on it when 60 years were on the table.

So there you go. It's all basically bullshit and this Florida law was so stupid (but thankfully no longer in play), and prosecutors are some of the worst people on our planet. But to avoid any and all gun law bullshit, don't ever fire a warning shot. Shoot to kill or don't shoot at all.

---

Florida is awful.

---

ChaosTonyV4 posted...

Didnt BT of all people post his criminal record and it had no burglary charge on it?

He was charged with a disorderly while carrying a weapon and accused of prowling or some shit. Did they establish during the trial he was a convicted violent burglar? Isnt that a felony?

Not sure what you mean by that comment. I don't think I have ever lied on this message board or posted anything that wasn't provably true

---

BlAcK TuRtLe posted...

Not sure what you mean by that comment. I don't think I have ever lied on this message board or posted anything that wasn't provably true

how can you prove you believe you haven't posted anything not provably true

---

Tulsi went on Hannity to complain about the BBB plan being too progressive

---

*sad progressive noises*

---

"Too Progressive"
What does that even mean?
---

Something something handouts something something cultivating dependence something something big government

---

"We don't want Americans dependent on Government. We want them dependent on their employers because that's much better. Because as we all know, only people who have jobs that give them insurance have any real value. Everyone else is worthless."

---

PrivateBiscuit1 posted...

Well bizarrely, somehow someway, the instructions the jury received shifted the burden of proof FROM the Prosecution and to the Defendant (Marisa), meaning they now had to prove without any doubt that she was acting in self-defense.

Ah, I see that sometimes real like does in fact act like the Phoenix Wright court system

---

PrivateBiscuit1 posted...

Well bizarrely, somehow someway, the instructions the jury received shifted the burden of proof FROM the Prosecution and to the Defendant (Marisa), meaning they now had to prove without any doubt that she was acting in self-defense.

This is neither bizarre nor a mysterious trick, this is how self-defense works

You're admitting to murder, but arguing that it was justified. You can imagine infinity examples as to why this is necessary

---

banananor posted...

This is neither bizarre nor a mysterious trick, this is how self-defense works

You're admitting to murder, but arguing that it was justified. You can imagine infinity examples as to why this is necessary

No, that's not how it works. When you plead self-defense, it's still the prosecution's job to prove why the claim doesn't work. They have to prove, without any doubt, that the use of force was not necessary/justified. In this case, they're making the defendant try to prove, beyond a shadow of a doubt, that there's no way it wasn't justified. That is not how it's supposed to be. It's the prosecution's job to prove the defense wrong.

---

SEP has the right of it. The burden of proof is always on the Prosecution/Plaintiff. The entire reason that the appeal was successful was because the Jury Instructions were set up so the jury had to decide based on the Defendant proving that she shot in self-defense.

It's literally the basis of the phrase "Innocent until proven guilty."

---

StealThisSheen posted...

It's the prosecution's job to prove the defense wrong.

wait what. Our courts don't work this way.

Its the defenses job to show that what the prosecution has isn't proof.

---

red13n posted...

wait what. Our courts don't work this way.

Its the defenses job to show that what the prosecution has isn't proof.

That's part of it, but within the bigger scope of the prosecution has to prove their case, not the defense. If the defense is claiming self-defense, it's not on them to prove it. It's on the prosecution to prove it wasn't self-defense. Obviously the defense works to discredit/show why the prosecution's case is wrong, but that's still in the scope of the prosecution having to prove their case, not the other way around.

---

I can tell which of you has not seen enough lawyer tv tbh

---

StealThisSheen posted...

EDIT: Basically, the defense does not have to prove it was self-defense. All they have to do is keep the prosecution from proving it wasn't (or likewise convincing a judge/jury it was).

I think you are almost there but wording it really poorly. Mainly because in our courts the defense goes second. It isn't really a "Prosecution disprove the defense" setup. The prosecution presents first and then it is the defenses job to cast doubt on their case.

---

red13n posted...

I think you are almost there but wording it really poorly. Mainly because in our courts the defense goes second. It isn't really a "Prosecution disprove the defense" setup. The prosecution presents first and then it is the defenses job to cast doubt on their case.

The defense "goes first" in that they plead self-defense, which is what the prosecution then has to disprove with their case. The whole point is the defense doesn't have to prove their plea, they just make said plea and it's up to the prosecution to prove why it's not self-defense. The defense does not have to prove it is.

---

StealThisSheen posted...

The defense "goes first" in that they plead self-defense, which is what the prosecution then has to disprove with their case. The whole point is the defense doesn't have to prove their plea, they just make said plea and it's up to the prosecution to prove why it's not self-defense. The defense does not have to prove it is.

Maybe some states do it different and they attach to it to the plea, but to my knowledge you dont "plead self-defense" to start. You plead not guilty and then show it was self-defense. Rittenhouse has followed this at least.

---

red13n posted...

Maybe some states do it different and they attach to it to the plea, but to my knowledge you dont "plead self-defense" to start. You plead not guilty and then show it was self-defense. Rittenhouse has followed this at least.

Most states attach it to the plea, similar to pleading insanity and so on. I'm not sure if most states actually make it like, the official wording (like "not guilty by reason of insanity/self-defense/etc."), it's possible it's just listed as "not guilty," but it's part of the plea. It's part of the plea so that the prosecution can prepare their case accordingly and so the defense can present evidence accordingly. It's the difference between an affirmative defense and a standard defense.

EDIT: The point is, whether it's officially listed as part of the plea or not, an affirmative defense must be plead prior to the case starting, hence why it's the "first move."

---

Actually, I do need to clarify what I said, somewhat.

When I say the defense doesnt need to prove self defense, thats not entirely true. They obviously need to argue that case and present any collaborating evidence, even if its just testimony, but they do NOT need to prove said self defense beyond a reasonable doubt. Its still on the prosecution to prove beyond a reasonable doubt why it wasnt self defense. In the case in question, the jury was apparently instructed that it was the defense that had to prove self defense beyond a reasonable doubt, and thats not how it is supposed to be at all.

---

Who cares

---

So the country cant survive if they overreact for Trump but dont for Biden?

Dang, that sucks

---

Oh no missing posts...

what media/fact checkers are denying that biden said "negro"?

---

Haven't started watching the Rittenhouse trial stuff but so far the three big things are:

The gun possession charge has been dropped entirely.

Judge has decided the jury will disregard the blurry ass pictures entirely because the Prosecution has been unable to prove that it's reliable.

The jury instruction for reckless endangerment for the first shooting is if McGinnis (the reporter who was behind Rosenbaum and started the series of blowing up the entire Prosecution) was in danger, when he wasn't in danger since he thought he wasn't in the way of the gun shots.

---

PrivateBiscuit1 posted...

The gun possession charge has been dropped entirely.

Called it.

Common sense says he violated the law, but obviously they were gonna give this kid the benefit of the doubt with the weird wording.

Can we just declare him not guilty and move on to the aftermath now?

---

A friend of mine has a job in Kenosha about 15 minutes from the courthouse today. Great timing.

---

ChaosTonyV4 posted...

Called it.

Common sense says he violated the law, but obviously they were gonna give this kid the benefit of the doubt with the weird wording.

Can we just declare him not guilty and move on to the aftermath now?

Hey Tony.

Like everything else concerning this case, you actually don't know anything about the law in question. He wasn't violating it and never should have been charged with it. The point of contention is the length of the barrel, in which the Prosecution had never measured in any point during the investigation but charged him anyway, and the length of the barrel did not exceed the length it was to be in violation of the law.

Hope this helps.

---

Hey Biscuit.

You keep acting like everything is an immutable fact because you said so, but theres literally a reason the judge didnt throw out the charge until now.

The entire purpose of the case, the entire purpose of fucking trials, is to look at the law, look at the evidence, and come to a conclusion.

Youre somehow working backwards.

Anyway, heres the law for you to read and interpret for yourself:

https://docs.legis.wisconsin.gov/statutes/statutes/948/60/2/a

Hope this helps!

---

All you have to do is read the law to know he didn't violate it. The major gun limits on long barrels - those 16" or more - only address those 16 and younger. Common sense says he's absolutely could carry if you actually read it.

---

Also just so you know, the entire reason the length of the barrel IS the point of content is because of the interpretation of the lawsomething I literally said.

Wang I just posted the law right there. Click the referenced laws to find the others, but the situation is exactly as I stated: a poorly written law allows the use of gun barrel length as a defense.

im not saying that is incorrect, I am saying that is an interpretation of the law that is probably not intendednor consistent with the law of other states.

Jesus Christ.

---

ChaosTonyV4 posted...

Anyway, heres the law for you to read and interpret for yourself:

https://docs.legis.wisconsin.gov/statutes/statutes/948/60/2/a

Cool.
Now keep reading. Right into 3C.
Part 1 covered the definitions.
Part 2 covered the rules.
Part 3 covered the exceptions.

3C:

(c) This section applies only to a person under 18 years of age who possesses or is armed with a rifle or a shotgun if the person is in violation of s. 941.28 or is not in compliance with ss. 29.304 and 29.593. This section applies only to an adult who transfers a firearm to a person under 18 years of age if the person under 18 years of age is not in compliance with ss. 29.304 and 29.593 or to an adult who is in violation of s. 941.28.

So you look into those 3 cases where the law does apply.
The first is short barrel. Not applicable.
Second is under 16. Not applicable.
Third is hunting certificate related. Not applicable.

As such, this section of the law does not apply. 16-17 can legally possess guns of 16" and more in Wisconsin.

---

ChaosTonyV4 posted...

Hey Biscuit.

You keep acting like everything is an immutable fact because you said so, but theres literally a reason the judge didnt throw out the charge until now.

The entire purpose of the case, the entire purpose of fucking trials, is to look at the law, look at the evidence, and come to a conclusion.

Youre somehow working backwards.

Anyway, heres the law for you to read and interpret for yourself:

https://docs.legis.wisconsin.gov/statutes/statutes/948/60/2/a

Hope this helps!

Tony, can I just put this simply, first.

You haven't watched any of this trial. You haven't seen both sides argue this gun possession. You haven't seen the law they are arguing. You googled this from someone who does not actually understand the law and then sent it here as a "gotcha". You haven't gotten a SINGLE THING RIGHT that you've tried to argue in this trial and I don't know why you keep trying to argue with me over this stuff.

You want to look at 948.60(3)(c), in which it states:

(c) This section applies only to a person under 18 years of age who possesses or is armed with a rifle or a shotgun if the person is in violation of s. 941.28 or is not in compliance with ss. 29.304 and 29.593. This section applies only to an adult who transfers a firearm to a person under 18 years of age if the person under 18 years of age is not in compliance with ss. 29.304 and 29.593 or to an adult who is in violation of s. 941.28.

This section is the important one because Kyle is under 17. Then you look at 941.28 it references:

941.28 Possession of short-barreled shotgun or short-barreled rifle.
(1) In this section:
(a) Rifle" means a firearm designed or redesigned, made or remade, and intended to be fired from the shoulder or hip and designed or redesigned and made or remade to use the energy of a propellant in a metallic cartridge to fire through a rifled barrel a single projectile for each pull of the trigger.
(b) Short-barreled rifle" means a rifle having one or more barrels having a length of less than 16 inches measured from closed breech or bolt face to muzzle or a rifle having an overall length of less than 26 inches.

The rifle is within these length requirements, which was in contention. Which means he needed to be in violation of BOTH 29.304 and 29.593. 29.304 deals with minors 16 and under, which Kyle is not.

I hope you understand a little bit more Tony. I don't know why you keep fighting me so hard on this case when I clearly know so much more about it than you do, and you haven't put any effort to actually watching and seeing the arguments laid out by both sides.

---

What part of poorly worded so its open for interpretation are you not getting?

You really think Wisconsin law is intended to allow 16-17 year olds to carry guns around without adult supervision, as long as the barrel is long enough? How many states do you think intentionally have that law on the books?

---

Except that's not an interpretation, it's explicitly stated in the law. You just need to read it in full, not just stop at the second point. What you posted was specifically to 2A. You need to read the law in full, including 3C. If you want it highlighted in the link, here.

https://docs.legis.wisconsin.gov/statutes/statutes/948/60/3/c

Same law. This is why a year ago people were saying it's largely a hunting exception, once it's read though the result ends up being pretty clear that yeah, if your gun is long enough and you're 16+, you can carry.

---

Also "Why didn't the Judge throw this case out by now if it was so clear?" Because this is the point in the trial where they usually drop charges because the Judge wants to hear them explain their sides entirely before it goes to a Jury.

---

ChaosTonyV4 posted...

What part of poorly worded so its open for interpretation are you not getting?

You really think Wisconsin law is intended to allow 16-17 year olds to carry guns around without adult supervision, as long as the barrel is long enough? How many states do you think intentionally have that law on the books?

17+, yes. Because that's how they wrote the law. I'm sorry that you don't like that, but they wrote the law like that because that's what they intended.

And I don't know, Tony. Because I'd have to look at the laws for every state, but I imagine it's a spread of even more lenient to less lenient across the board.

---

You haven't watched any of this trial. You haven't seen both sides argue this gun possession. You haven't seen the law they are arguing. You googled this from someone who does not actually understand the law and then sent it here as a "gotcha". You haven't gotten a SINGLE THING RIGHT that you've tried to argue in this trial and I don't know why you keep trying to argue with me over this stuff.

I literally did look this up and watch it, and I know using Google for backup sources offends you, but theres plenty of articles and law professionals making money the exact same argument I am.

PrivateBiscuit1 posted...

Also "Why didn't the Judge throw this case out by now if it was so clear?" Because this is the point in the trial where they usually drop charges because the Judge wants to hear them explain their sides entirely before it goes to a Jury.

You must have missed the part during pre-trial where Rittenhouses lawyer petitioned for it to be dropped and the judge denied it. Its ok, you were probably busy getting your law degree.

---

ChaosTonyV4 posted...

You must have missed the part during pre-trial where Rittenhouses lawyer petitioned for it to be dropped and the judge denied it. Its ok, you were probably busy getting your law degree.

And I just gave you the reason the Judge, himself, decided to wait.

Like why do you keep trying to argue with me about this? Why are you so incapable of saying "Sorry, I was wrong"?

---

Because you are continuously confusing the events and results of trial with objective and moral truth. Its frustrating as hell, and Im not saying sorry Im wrong because were not even arguing on the same playing field, you genuinely dont even understand that Im not.

---

Also for the record, this is like the 3rd time youre confusing me saying This shouldnt be this way, and theres an argument to be made for that with me arguing against your objective truth after obsessing over this trial, so im finally realizing its hopeless.

Unless others want to jump in, Ill let you feel like youve won and respectfully bow out, this sucks.

---

You said "common sense is that he violated the law".

And then I say no, he didn't violate the law.

And then you post a law and say "See, he violated the law!"

And then Wang and I explain in detail that he didn't.

And then you say "Well obviously it's just a single interpretation of the law!"

And we say no, it's the literal only interpretation of it.

And then you say "WELL IT SHOULDN'T BE THIS WAY IT'S MORALLY WRONG!"

You're fucking ridiculous dude.

---

The details matter so "moving on to the aftermath would be wrong." There is an ungodly amount of misinformation out there so it's important that all of it is cleared up. The gun law is just another example of that - it's not confusing, it's explicit, it just demands reading the law in full. Yeah, he legally carried. He didn't cross state lines with a gun, it was always in Wisconsin. Both facts that have consistently been gotten wrong.

Will that help with a lot of media sources doubling down on the fake narrative, no. CNN, MSNBC, they'll repeat the lies. But that just says find places who accept new information and admit they were wrong about the case because they care more for the facts and less the politics. ...well, that and potentially libel laws.


---

ChaosTonyV4 posted...

with the weird wording.

ChaosTonyV4 posted...

Anyway, heres the law for you to read and interpret for yourself:

ChaosTonyV4 posted...

but theres plenty of articles and law professionals making money the exact same argument I am.

ChaosTonyV4 posted...

What part of poorly worded so its open for interpretation are you not getting?

This is why we cant continue talking about this, were not actually having a conversation, youve got your position and cant even comprehend subjectivity

---

And so help me god if you miss the point and respond with some judge dredd the law is the law shit.

---

For what it's worth my biggest objection here was that whole just trying to move on.

The misinformation is pretty horrible on this case, always was. If you just move on, you'll just hear more of it, like complaints about the judge being biased to Kyle. Guarantee you that spin is happening on this gun charge being dropped, as opposed to it being what the law says. You shouldn't want the details to be thrown under a rug of "well, move on!", ideally the question should be "who lied to me," or knowing exactly what self defense looks like so the next time somebody fires a gun in one of these, it's clearer.

Bear in mind I fully believe this case is absolutely providing cover for some of the other cases you mentioned, including and especially Aubrey. That could easily be solved though, if media focused more on the far, far more questionable circumstances that one has.

---