Several shot during 3rd night of Kenosha riots

[Deej 76568]

That's what I like about these high school shooters, I get older and they can't claim self-defense.

 

[Mantis Toboggan, MD 1499]

It could. But being chased doesn't create an automatic right to self defense with deadly force. The kid with the assault rifle has a tall hill to climb to show he had a reasonable fear of seriously bodily injury from an unarmed person. The chase helps him a little bit, but the question then becomes why are they chasing him? Something happened before and that potentially could also invalidate a claim of self defense. 

 

The state has the burden of proof. The defendant doesn’t have to prove self-defense. It just has to be raised. The prosecution has to prove it wasn’t self-defense beyond a reasonable doubt. That is always the tall hill.

[bad_teammate 13132]

When I see those memes pointing out the disparity in treatment, I usually take them to mean that cops should treat the black people like the cops treat the white people, not vice versa. 

I'm glad the kid didn't get shot.

I know pound-me-in-the-ass prison is a joke here, but it's a poisonous system. He should have a shot at redemption. His incarceration shouldn't be the end of his life and it shouldn't destroy him.

Jacob Blake should be alive.

This kid's victims should be alive. 

People should be able to be heard from simply peacefully protesting in the daylight.

No one should have a life so worthless to them that they feel the need to loot a department store for phone cases.

There are no fucking wins anywhere. 

[Wulaw Horn 18983]

13 minutes ago, Mantis Toboggan, MD said:

 

The state has the burden of proof. The defendant doesn’t have to prove self-defense. It just has to be raised. The prosecution has to prove it wasn’t self-defense beyond a reasonable doubt. That is always the tall hill.

I don’t think that’s correct dude. Self defense is an affirmative defense, and when you raise an affirmative defense that puts the burden on you. Same with insanity and any other affirmative defense. 

[aggie08 21434]

6 minutes ago, bad_teammate said:

When I see those memes pointing out the disparity in treatment, I usually take them to mean that cops should treat the black people like the cops treat the white people, not vice versa. 

I'm glad the kid didn't get shot.

I know pound-me-in-the-ass prison is a joke here, but it's a poisonous system. He should have a shot at redemption. His incarceration shouldn't be the end of his life and it shouldn't destroy him.

Jacob Blake should be alive.

This kid's victims should be alive. 

People should be able to be heard from simply peacefully protesting in the daylight.

No one should have a life so worthless to them that they feel the need to loot a department store for phone cases.

There are no fucking wins anywhere. 

I mean, I guess we have one win that the cop's only 57% accurate at point blank range.

[Gourmand 7774]

1 hour ago, ousuxndallas said:

One less liberal activist in the world, and one with one less arm. It's a good start.

FUCK U CUZ NO POLITICS ALLOWED

This is the DT! CR >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>

[Mantis Toboggan, MD 1499]

I don’t think that’s correct dude. Self defense is an affirmative defense, and when you raise an affirmative defense that puts the burden on you. Same with insanity and any other affirmative defense. 

 

Well I’m board certified in criminal law in Texas, I have tried a dozen or so murders, and it is correct. It is also correct in Wisconsin. I checked.

[Dahobbs 17449]

16 minutes ago, Mantis Toboggan, MD said:

 

The state has the burden of proof. The defendant doesn’t have to prove self-defense. It just has to be raised. The prosecution has to prove it wasn’t self-defense beyond a reasonable doubt. That is always the tall hill.

Yeah I know that, but ultimately the jury has to believe him. In this instance, that is going to be tough. He has an argument. It just isn't a great one in my opinion. 

[yoladu 4067]

2 hours ago, atomheartbevo said:

A little sloppy, but basically hits the main points.

If he was black and carrying a rifle, one of those pseudo-military vehicles would have run his ass over.

this kid walking away from murder scene with a long gun strapped to his body was trying to give himself up and the cops just said, move along.

That is some white privledge, man.

[Wulaw Horn 18983]

1 minute ago, Mantis Toboggan, MD said:

 

Well I’m board certified in criminal law and it is correct.

 

Ok. I might be wrong. I learned (I think in Crim law many a year and many a beer ago) that the state has to prove beyond a reasonable doubt that you commit the homicide,  but if you raise an affirmative defense it’s on you. Is that true for something like insanity?  

[cmontexas 3254]

"I'm sorry, officer. I didn't know I couldn't do that"

[Mantis Toboggan, MD 1499]

Ok. I might be wrong. I learned (I think in Crim law many a year and many a beer ago) that the state has to prove beyond a reasonable doubt that you commit the homicide,  but if you raise an affirmative defense it’s on you. Is that true for something like insanity?  

Insanity is a completely different doctrine. You are correct about an affirmative defense but self defense is not a true affirmative defense in that respect. It is in black and white in the penal code.

[atomheartbevo 89450]

2 hours ago, woohorn said:

Thread on social media accounts of 17 yo rambo.

@4doorsmorewhores - lol

 

Not going to dig into it, but apparently the group he was associated with had organized on Facebook, and were posting all kinds of shit.  FB didn't care/do anything until after he killed those people.

[atomheartbevo 89450]

2 hours ago, Nice Guy Eddie said:

Many of the self defense laws seem to state that you can’t claim self defense if you’re involved in illegal behavior. If rittenhouse was breaking any gun laws, it might invalidate any self defense claim. Note:  I have extensive background in criminal law by watching tv.

Apparently he was breaking Illinois gun laws.

And speaking of, he was from Illinois, and it's kind of hard to think of a reason for a 17 year-old who is breaking multiple Illinois gun laws, to be at a riot in Wisconsin.  His social media history is one of him shooting all kinds of stuff (although it's being scrubbed by TikTok, etc.).

Based on one of his social media photos, I'm guessing he was voted most likely to engage in a school shooting.

[atomheartbevo 89450]

 I don't know where the fuck his parents were, but when my kid is 17, he's not going to take any of my guns and take off to a neighboring state when riots are happening.

Fuck, he's not going to take any of my guns to anywhere outside of a range, or a relative's place no matter what age he is.

[atomheartbevo 89450]

54 minutes ago, clapclapclap said:

Of course they still can, and will, get him on gun charges.  Teen went adrenalin thrill seeking on an adventure (even if perhaps well intentioned) and now 2 people are dead and his life ruined.  Don't make excuses for him just because, "Young people do stupid things, I know I did."  People are dead.  And that goes both ways, don't make excuses for rioters.

How the fuck is it well-intentioned for a 17 year-old to illegally possess and take a firearm across a state line to a fucking riot where people are fighting, looting, shooting, etc.?

[dcar00 14036]

2 hours ago, Deej said:

They are still allowed to shoot, obviously. 

In Northern Cal?

[dcar00 14036]

2 hours ago, wildcat09 said:

Has there been any confirmation on the tasing that supposedly happened that didn’t phase him? If that’s just a story from the cops I’m not inclined to believe it.

tasers are fucking pointless.

[atomheartbevo 89450]

33 minutes ago, bad_teammate said:

He should have a shot at redemption. His incarceration shouldn't be the end of his life and it shouldn't destroy him.

Not really.  He voluntarily put himself into a situation where he killed multiple people.  A situation that had nothing to do with him at all, that was not even in his own town, or even in his own state.  He was not going to cross paths with any of the criminals out looting/rioting in Kenosha.  But he decided to join with his buddies, illegally take a rifle across state lines, one which he did not even have the right to possess, and he put himself in the midst of a lot of really bad shit, and he made it worse.

He should be put away for life as a warning to all the other fucking idiots out there.

Of course, if we'd do the same to all the bad cops out there, lock them away for good, maybe in a warehouse that the Kenosho police chief is fond of, then we wouldn't be having this conversation, he wouldn't have went to Wisconsin with his buddies, and he wouldn't have have killed multiple people.

[Mantis Toboggan, MD 1499]

Apparently he was breaking Illinois gun laws.
And speaking of, he was from Illinois, and it's kind of hard to think of a reason for a 17 year-old who is breaking multiple Illinois gun laws, to be at a riot in Wisconsin.  His social media history is one of him shooting all kinds of stuff (although it's being scrubbed by TikTok, etc.).
Based on one of his social media photos, I'm guessing he was voted most likely to engage in a school shooting.

Breaking the law doesn’t preclude self-defense. It just affects the ability to consider a possibility to retreat. It means you lose stand your ground law protection if you are breaking the law.

[Mantis Toboggan, MD 1499]

I am not an apologist for this kid or his Larper comrades. They are morons imo. I’m just trying to offer accurate legal info when 99% of people misunderstand and misrepresent the law.

[atomheartbevo 89450]

5 minutes ago, Mantis Toboggan, MD said:

I am not an apologist for this kid or his Larper comrades. They are morons imo. I’m just trying to offer accurate legal info when 99% of people misunderstand and misrepresent the law.

The fact that he's not even in his own state is probably not going to help him at all, is it?

LARPing is right.

Edited August 27, 2020 by atomheartbevo

[CDAK 216]

Isn't one of the core demands of many criminal justice reform groups no more prison for youth 17 and under? 

[Wulaw Horn 18983]

37 minutes ago, Mantis Toboggan, MD said:

 

Insanity is a completely different doctrine. You are correct about an affirmative defense but self defense is not a true affirmative defense in that respect. It is in black and white in the penal code.

 

Thanks man. Learned something new tonight. I thought it fit with every other affirmative defense. 

[Texaspython 231]

17 minutes ago, Mantis Toboggan, MD said:

 

Breaking the law doesn’t preclude self-defense. It just affects the ability to consider a possibility to retreat. It means you lose stand your ground law protection if you are breaking the law.

 

Self defense doesn’t have to be merely “raised”, that’s the standard for the jury to consider it in the charge. The defendant has to prove their actions were reasonable then the burden shifts to the prosecution. That’s why they’re called “affirmative defenses”.

Edited August 27, 2020 by Texaspython

[Wulaw Horn 18983]

1 minute ago, Texaspython said:

Self defense doesn’t have to be merely “raised”, that’s the standard for the jury to consider it in the charge. The defendant has to prove their actions were reasonable then the burden shifts to the prosecution. That’s why they’re called “affirmative defenses”.

That’s what I thought too. He said it’s black and white in the penal code, and I definitely don’t have any practice experience so I will bow to his statements unless proven otherwise. 

[Texaspython 231]

5 minutes ago, Wulaw Horn said:

That’s what I thought too. He said it’s black and white in the penal code, and I definitely don’t have any practice experience so I will bow to his statements unless proven otherwise. 

It’s certainly in black and white. I’ve never heard anyone describe it in those terms. Using the word “raised” is hardly what I’d consider the burden of proof for self defense.

[Nice Guy Eddie 13414]

Rittenhouse just needs one sympathetic juror to think the protesters got what they deserved. But in general, can you successfully claim self defense because one person attacks but then you kill other people?

at the end of the day, he went there to kill someone and did so. We point at the racist gun couple but they walked outside of their home when the protest came to them. He got in his car and drove 20 miles.

[d2o 1602]

3 hours ago, Nice Guy Eddie said:

Rittenhouse just needs one sympathetic juror to think the protesters got what they deserved. But in general, can you successfully claim self defense because one person attacks but then you kill other people?

at the end of the day, he went there to kill someone and did so. We point at the racist gun couple but they walked outside of their home when the protest came to them. He got in his car and drove 20 miles.

It seems that yes one can.    Zimmerman went looking for trouble even against police dispatcher instructions.    When he found it he was still able to shoot and claim self defense.    His personal responsibility for his actions up to the point of him getting his ass kicked was ignored.*   

 

 

* I'm not a lawyer so what I think I saw may be full of shit  🕵️‍♂️

Edited August 27, 2020 by d2o

[Slacks 6791]

"shut up, we don't care what you think, we're not gonna change a fucking thing, and you best just shut up and take it."

Bang.

[Slacks 6791]

Tell me how long of a rap sheet Elijah McClain, Tamir Rice, Breonna Taylor, Daniel Shaver, Cameron Redus, Amadu Diallo, etc had. 

Stop resisting.

[workswithseed 2037]

4 hours ago, Nice Guy Eddie said:

Rittenhouse just needs one sympathetic juror to think the protesters got what they deserved. But in general, can you successfully claim self defense because one person attacks but then you kill other people?

at the end of the day, he went there to kill someone and did so. We point at the racist gun couple but they walked outside of their home when the protest came to them. He got in his car and drove 20 miles.

Racist couple? Do you have proof of that? Also they broke down the gate of thier private community as well, that road is theirs as well.

[Dahobbs 17449]

4 minutes ago, workswithseed said:

Racist couple? Do you have proof of that? Also they broke down the gate of thier private community as well, that road is theirs as well.

I don't know if they are racist, but they are exceptionally shitty people. By all means, do some research on them. 

[aggie08 21434]

10 minutes ago, Snacks said:

20 hours ago, Helobious said:

Tell me how long of a rap sheet Elijah McClain, Tamir Rice, Breonna Taylor, Daniel Shaver, Cameron Redus, Amadu Diallo, etc had. 

Stop resisting.

Stop sleeping at houses tangentially related to a another case we're investigating where we think drugs may be!

[Captainant 27467]

2 minutes ago, workswithseed said:

Racist couple? Do you have proof of that? Also they broke down the gate of thier private community as well, that road is theirs as well.

Well it would require you to hear/comprehend the dogwhistle of their "suburbs are going to be destroyed" rhetoric. But that couple has a history of being shitty to their fellow man, they acquired their home via a lawsuit, have destroyed neighbors property, and are frequent local shitbirds. No wonder the "blue lives matter" folks put them on a pedestal.

[workswithseed 2037]

3 minutes ago, Dahobbs said:

I don't know if they are racist, but they are exceptionally shitty people. By all means, do some research on them. 

The McCloskeys? The worse thing I can think of is trigger discipline.

[Wulaw Horn 18983]

6 minutes ago, Dahobbs said:

I don't know if they are racist, but they are exceptionally shitty people. By all means, do some research on them. 

That is certainly the consensus of my slightly left of center to hard right group of attorney friends in St Louis, some of whom know them and all of whom know of them. 

[DanRydell 799]

14 hours ago, dcar00 said:

what do you think would have happened if you had a warrant? or a weapon?

They had no reason to know I did not have a warrant, or a weapon in my car. 

Edited August 27, 2020 by DanRydell

[Js1 85114]

17 minutes ago, workswithseed said:

Racist couple? Do you have proof of that? Also they broke down the gate of thier private community as well, that road is theirs as well.

You would be the first to defend them. Unsurprising AF. 

[Js1 85114]

8 minutes ago, Captainant said:

Well it would require you to hear/comprehend the dogwhistle of their "suburbs are going to be destroyed" rhetoric. But that couple has a history of being shitty to their fellow man, they acquired their home via a lawsuit, have destroyed neighbors property, and are frequent local shitbirds. No wonder the "blue lives matter" folks put them on a pedestal.

Ah yes more of the cloaked racism they enjoy. Not so out in the open. PROTECT OUR SUBURBS. We know what that means 

[closetohumping 17404]

24 minutes ago, Snacks said:

21 hours ago, Helobious said:

Tell me how long of a rap sheet Elijah McClain, Tamir Rice, Breonna Taylor, Daniel Shaver, Cameron Redus, Amadu Diallo, etc had. 

Stop resisting.

....and pointing guns at cops.

[Mantis Toboggan, MD 1499]

It’s certainly in black and white. I’ve never heard anyone describe it in those terms. Using the word “raised” is hardly what I’d consider the burden of proof for self defense.

You are wrong. Read Saxton for a good discussion of it.

https://law.justia.com/cases/texas/court-of-criminal-appeals/1991/1404-89-4.html

“The effect of Subsection (d) is to require the state to disprove a defense beyond a reasonable doubt after the issue has been properly raised by the evidence. In other words, the defendant has the burden of producing evidence to raise a defense, but the prosecution has the final burden of persuasion to disprove it."”

[workswithseed 2037]

3 minutes ago, Captainant said:

Well it would require you to hear/comprehend the dogwhistle of their "suburbs are going to be destroyed" rhetoric. But that couple has a history of being shitty to their fellow man, they acquired their home via a lawsuit, have destroyed neighbors property, and are frequent local shitbirds. No wonder the "blue lives matter" folks put them on a pedestal.

And? I could say the same for Mr. Blake. Unless you think assholes can't protect themselves? 

[closetohumping 17404]

14 minutes ago, workswithseed said:

The McCloskeys? The worse thing I can think of is trigger discipline.

There's some documented history of them being pretty shitty people.  Doesn't mean you get to break down their fence or loot their homes.

[Dahobbs 17449]

Just now, Mantis Toboggan, MD said:

 

You are wrong. Read Saxton for a good discussion of it.

https://law.justia.com/cases/texas/court-of-criminal-appeals/1991/1404-89-4.html

“The effect of Subsection (d) is to require the state to disprove a defense beyond a reasonable doubt after the issue has been properly raised by the evidence. In other words, the defendant has the burden of producing evidence to raise a defense, but the prosecution has the final burden of persuasion to disprove it."”
 

 

Yep. That is the rule pretty much everywhere now, and very well may be a Constitutional requirement. To be fair though, the law use to be different and affirmative defense meant affirmative defense. 

[elguapo 4583]

Just now, closetohumping said:

There's some documented history of them being pretty shitty people.  Doesn't mean you get to break down their fence or loot their homes.

No one was trying to loot those coward’s home

[Nice Guy Eddie 13414]

30 minutes ago, workswithseed said:

Racist couple? Do you have proof of that? Also they broke down the gate of thier private community as well, that road is theirs as well.

They’re known as the racist gun couple. I have no idea of their real names.

[South Austin 52148]

3 minutes ago, Nice Guy Eddie said:

They’re known as the racist gun couple. I have no idea of their real names.

Frank and Edna Racist Gun Couple.

[workswithseed 2037]

25 minutes ago, Js1 said:

You would be the first to defend them. Unsurprising AF. 

You called Wulaw racist. Mind expanding that one?

[Texaspython 231]

5 minutes ago, Mantis Toboggan, MD said:

 

You are wrong. Read Saxton for a good discussion of it.

https://law.justia.com/cases/texas/court-of-criminal-appeals/1991/1404-89-4.html

“The effect of Subsection (d) is to require the state to disprove a defense beyond a reasonable doubt after the issue has been properly raised by the evidence. In other words, the defendant has the burden of producing evidence to raise a defense, but the prosecution has the final burden of persuasion to disprove it."”
 

 

No, you’re wrong, from the same opinion.

“Defensive evidence which is merely consistent with the physical evidence at the scene of the alleged offense will not render the State's evidence insufficient since the credibility determination of such evidence is solely within the jury's province and the jury is free to accept or reject the defensive evidence. A jury verdict of guilty is an implicit finding rejecting the defendant's self-defense theory. Jenkins, 740 S.W.2d at 438.”

You seem to be confused about the use of the word “raised”.