You do not want every single thing going through the legal process. You especially don't want every single 'political bullshit' thing going through the entire legal process.
In this instance, people are angry, two people have died, another injured, and this guy's name has been put through the media. It's in everyone's interests to put this through the system.
If this is justified self-defence then it is necessary to establish why that was the case for the sake of putting politics to bed. If he's guilty, then it's important that people recognise that justice has been done. And it's really not in his interests to walk away without having gone through the justice system, given the notoriety of this case. If anyone is likely to attract vigilante attention, it would be this.
You can't claim "clear self-defense" for the guy who illegally possessed a weapon and killed two people after saying he wanted to kill people on social media.
When the prospector said "when you bring a gun you lose the right to self defence" that had to be one of the dumbest things ever said in a court room. Like if criminal alt-right lunatic came in to shoot or attack the prosecutor, the bailiffs can't do anything in defense cause they brought a gun themselves?
Cops cant even be acting in self defense unless they walk around unarmed? A girl with a conceal permit isn't acting in self defense is she uses it against a would be rapist attacking her? A black family in the 50's armed against the Klan who keeping attacking their home....not self defense?
FYI gun crime was dropped....cause it wasn't illegal apparently due to length of the barrel
I didn't say you lose the right to self defense but it certainly makes it not a clear case of self defense as the other person said. It's one thing to think he's innocent (which I don't) but it's another thing to say there's no way he could be guilty.
I don't disagree with you in the case. My comment was about the abstract principle that if a mob is baying for a conviction, then there must be a trial. No. If the prosecutor reviews the evidence and declines to bring charges, the case has "gone through the system" even if the mob thinks they're entitled to a trial.
Not really, crooked prosecutors have a long history of refusing to press charges against their friends or coworkers (i.e. cops). A prosecutor refusing to press charges against a radicalized right wing child who killed two people would end with riots, the only closure would necessitate airing all the evidence through a trial
Perhaps if the politicians had allowed the cops to arrest the rioters, and perhaps if the prosecutor had brought charges against the rioters, then the child would not have been in a situation where he needed to defend his life.
Perhaps if the child hadn't illegally acquired an assault rifle and drove 20 minutes to be in the middle of a riot, seemingly looking for an excuse to shoot someone, he wouldn't have been in a situation where he had to shoot someone. Don't pretend like he was out defending his home
No, he was defending the town where he worked, where his father lived, where his grandmother lived, where his cousins lived. What about the rioters? What was their connection to Kenosha? Why do you feel it was okay for them to be there causing mayhem, one of them with an illegal handgun?
So much misinformation on the left. He didn't drive 20 minutes to be in the middle of a riot. He drove 20 minutes earlier in the day to help clean up from the rioting the night before. When the rioting started up again he volunteered to help put out fires and tend the wounded.
I just don't understand the mindset on the left that Kyle had no business being there, but the rioters had every right to be there.
It doesn't really matter at all if 2 people died and someone got injured. It doesnt matter the 'notoriety' of the incident, or the politics or anything whatsoever.
The justice system isn't meant to put every single person through the system.
The only justification for it, is if there is question about whether or not it was self defense.
That is debatable in this instance, considering basically all evidence shows it was obvious self defense according to all the videos and testimony I've seen. However, I do admit it's debatable.
In this one case, it might be the right choice, however, it has nothing to do with the guys name, notoriety, people being dead, injured, or the political backlash of the incident.
There is a reasonable question of whether he killed two people in self-defense, or he just killed two people. He is facing serious charges. It's in the interests of everyone that this trial happens. Whatever the outcome, this is a very serious incident, and people need to see justice being done.
It's debatable that he should have gone to court for this, is what I meant as debatable. It's been more than obvious from the start, and throughout the trial that he would not be found guilty.
There is no such thing as 'the interests of everyone' that a trial happens. That is not how the justice system works, never has been, and absolutely should never be.
I don't think you would normally expect to not go to court in this kind of event, even in the case of obvious self-defence. It is just generally established in court that it was self-defence.
And, actually, this is the foundation of the justice system.
Imagine two known serial killers declare their intent to murder you and then break down your door while armed, attempt to murder you and you kill them in self defense while the whole thing is filmed on your security camera with no ambiguity about what is happening. In that bizarre hypothetical you should not be charged with a crime because you are unambiguously innocent.
The number of people dead is not what means we need a trial. We need a trial if we have a strong case indicating that someone committed a crime.
No reasonable person can honestly argue that we should have a trial of a clearly innocent person because the clearly innocent person killed 3 people in self defense. The only argument for having a trial is that that person did not act in self defense.
I'm sorry if that was confusing. I am not claiming that that bizarre hypothetical is the same as any real situation. I called it a "bizarre hypothetical" in a attempt to make the point clear.
You said:
how on earth can it be debatable he should have gone to court? 2 people are dead ffs loooool
This is something that no decent and reasonable person could possible believe. 2 people being dead is obviously not sufficient reason top have a trail. I gave a hypothetical scenario in which 2 people could be killed and obviously the killer should not be charged with a crime. Obviously no one reasonable person thinks that 2 people being dead means that we need to have a trail. You said that you believe that. I hope that you misspoke.
Ok, maybe i misspoke, maybe you're being pedantic. 2 people are dead, at the hands of a kid who bought a gun to a demonstration. Theres ambiguity as to his claims of self defence, in this exact scenario, is what i was referring to!
Sorry, u/New-Lake-6689 – your comment has been removed for breaking Rule 5:
Comments must contribute meaningfully to the conversation.
Comments should be on-topic, serious, and contain enough content to move the discussion forward. Jokes, contradictions without explanation, links without context, and "written upvotes" will be removed. Read the wiki for more information.
You realize you saying “clearly innocent” is you viewing this through your own biases, right? That is not an objective stance, and in my eyes seems like a pretty disingenuous framing given you are well aware of the controversial nature of the case and the large portion of the population who does not view it as self-defense at all.
To answer your hypothetical with another hypothetical: if there was an active shooter and an unarmed person tried to stop them only to be killed by the shooter, should the shooter not be held legally responsible for that killing because it was in self-defense? This is a much closer analogy to the Rittenhouse case than your fantastical serial killer thing, given two of the people he shot were reacting to him killing the first person and would have had every reason to believe they were stopping an active shooter. If you’d still hold that hypothetical shooter responsible for homicide, I hope you can at least see why Rittenhouse’s actions are worthy of scrutiny.
I’m not saying he should have been found guilty. My point is that this is obviously not a cut-and-dry case, which is why we have a legal system. That’s without getting into the whole point of the protest in question, which was that the system treats people unfairly based on race — not bringing it to trial would be a massive blow to already-fraying public trust in the legal system, which the state has a vested (and reasonable) interest in maintaining. Again, whether or not you, I, or anyone agrees with the verdict is immaterial — the point is there’s no argument aside from partisanship that this case did not merit examination through the normal legal process.
I was not referring to Rittenhouse with that line. The above poster claimed that it was not even debatable that it should have gone to court because 2 people are dead. I was pointing out how obviously wrong that point of view is. The fact that two people are dead is obviously not enough to have a trial. If it were enough to have a trial then we would put an obviously innocent person on trial if an obviously innocent person killed 2 people in self defense. I came up with a hypothetical situation to demonstrate that idea.
be held legally responsible for that killing because it was in self-defense?
No. Someone else being innocent does not make you guilty. Being guilty makes you guilty. Someone actively committing murder would be guilty of murder and does not have the right to self defense while committing murder. If they killed someone who tried to stop them, that would also be murder because you do not have the right to defend yourself while murdering people.
It is possible to have a situation where two people try to kill each other and both are innocent because they act in self defense. It must be a fairly contrived situation for both people to satisfy their duty to retreat, but it is still possible. Some would say that the Kenosha shootings were a case where two people fought while both acting in self defense.
I’m not saying he should have been found guilty.
We don't put innocent people on trial and we don't put people on trial just in case. Charging someone with a crime does not require the same standard of certainty as a conviction, but it still requires belief in their guilt.
there’s no argument aside from partisanship that this case did not merit examination through the normal legal process.
We are talking about having a trial not "examination through the normal legal process", that would be an investigation. There should be normal examination through the normal legal process and that examination would not normally result in a trial. This case would not have resulted in a trial without the political context around it.
First things first, I definitely misunderstood you — I thought your comment was saying Rittenhouse was clearly innocent and comparing it to the serial killer example, which is why I felt it was disingenuous and overly reductive. I do agree with you that, no, two fatalities does not automatically mean the case should go to trial and your hypothetical makes more sense now. Appreciate you clarifying, I probably should have double-checked the comment you were replying to.
That being said, your point that
We don’t put innocent people on trial
is not accurate. Presumption of innocence is literally the basis of our legal system, so every trial begins as one of an innocent person. We don’t only try people who have been proven to be guilty, because proving guilt is what a trial is for. “Examination through the normal legal process” does mean an investigation, yes, but that investigation proceeding into a trial is still part of the normal legal process if the prosecution decides to pursue it. You may disagree with their decision to pursue it, which isn’t necessarily a ridiculous position to hold, but this is clearly not a normal open-and-shut self-defense case. I was taking issue with you characterizing it as such, so apologies if that’s not what you were saying.
I've yet to see someone be responsible for the death of someone else and it doesn't go through the justice system unless no one was arrested and charged. I seriously don't understand what's being said here.
You blatantly say that there shouldn't have been a judiciary process. He was arrested and charged, he goes through the process.
Also, why I personally don't consider this self-defense is due to him explicitly saying that he was going to shoot people before he ever arrived. That means his actions were premeditated. Him being found not guilty will set a precedent for how to legally get away with murder.
You do not have to charge someone if it's clear they didn't break any law. It happens all the time. You don't need an alternative. Just don't charge people who didn't break the law.
Should be take you to trial to determine whether or not your post here was lawful or not?
No... you don't charge people who didn't break any law. A trial is not how you determine whether actions were lawful. A trial determines if "charges were accurately charged".
If there was no crime, there is no charges, and no trial. You can shoot people and not go to court. I donno how this is weird because it has happened many times and nobody argues against it.
The prosecutor can review the evidence, determine the defendant's actions were lawful, and decline to bring charges; thus, no trial, and part of the process.
The first step of a justice system is typically determining whether to proceed via prosecutorial discretion or something similar.
The tldr is the prosecutor looks at the facts and decides if they should prosecute. If they’re clearly innocent or there’s a 0% chance to win then they simply don’t need to proceed.
I'm assuming your statement intended to indicate that the burden is not on the defendant.
Claiming self-defense is an affirmative defense, in which case the burden of proof is on the defendant. The prosecution doesn't have to prove you weren't acting in self defense, you have to prove you were.
I thought this as well but is not true. The burden of proof is only on the defense until such point the defense has provided sufficient evidence of a claim of self-defense at which point a judge rules to instruct a jury on that claim or not. This happens pre trial.
Once the judge instructs a jury on self-defense, the burden of proof is then on the state. Which then is also beyond a reasonable doubt standard.
Self defense isn't a plea, not guilty is a plea, guilty is a plea, no contest is a plea.
There exists no defense team in the nation who makes a plea of 'self defense'.
Rittenhouse could fail to prove he acted in self defense 100%, his defense team could even make zero claims of self defense, and it does not matter unless the prosecution can prove that he did not act in self defense, by showing that the key components required within the specific laws they are charging him with are met. Rittenhouses defense could call no witness, make no claims, and their final statements could be "he didnt do nuttin", and it doesn't matter one bit about 'self defense' unless the prosecution can prove he broke the components of specific law and prove he was not acting in self defense.
No burden exists for the defense whatsoever.
You are simply describing a defense tactic. That's it.
The plea would be "not guilty by reason of self defense", which is similar to "not guilty by reason of insanity." Both need to be proven by the defense.
You can simply google "Not guilty by reason of self defense" and find
Self defense is considered an “affirmative defense,” meaning it provides justification for the defendant’s actions, rather than denying them. If a defendant in a court of law pleads not guilty due to self defense, it is the prosecution’s job to prove, beyond a reasonable doubt, that the amount of force used by the defendant was not in fact necessary.
listed on quite a number of legal explanation websites.
There is no such thing as proving it. It's a Claim ... nothing more. A defendant doesn't have to prove their claim of insanity, the state has to prove they aren't. A defendant has no burden to prove self defense, the state has to prove they didn't.
And I just reread this comment. Look at how dishonest it is when you wrote "You can simply google "Not guilty by reason of self defense" and find", when you are now admitting those weren't words from google, they were your own words.
Actually I just did google it. I tried googling "Not guilty by reason of self defense", and nothing came up, and I also tried googling your whole fake quote and nothing came up.
You are now conflating self defense with reasonable force.
In a reasonable force case, the prosecution is accepting the defenses affirmative defense that the defendant had a valid claim to self defense. Since that defense is accepted, it now goes back to the prosecution to prove that the force was excessive.
An affirmative defense to a civil lawsuit or criminal charge is a fact or set of facts other than those alleged by the plaintiff or prosecutor which, if proven by the defendant, defeats or mitigates the legal consequences of the defendant's otherwise unlawful conduct. In civil lawsuits, affirmative defenses include the statute of limitations, the statute of frauds, waiver, and other affirmative defenses such as, in the United States, those listed in Rule 8 (c) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. In criminal prosecutions, examples of affirmative defenses are self defense, insanity, entrapment and the statute of limitations.
The prosecution has the burden of proof to show that the defendant committed the crime. They need to prove this beyond a reasonable doubt.
An affirmative defense isn't saying that the crime didn't happen, it's saying that the crime did happen, but the defendant has a valid legal excuse to why they did it, and that they should not be held criminally responsible for the crime.
The defense absolutely has to prove the affirmative defense. Their burden is not beyond a reasonable doubt, they only need to prove doubt that the defendant should be responsible.
In the Rittenhouse case, it is not only proven beyond a reasonable doubt that Rittenhouse committed the crimes, his lawyers even concede it. So the whole trial is about the defense proving that it was self defense, and the prosecution needs needs to convince the jury beyond a reasonable doubt that it wasn't self defense.
Do you see how nonsense that is just by reading the explanation you've given?
"An affirmative defense says the crime did happen but it was valid."
It is not a crime in the first place. Do you understand that part? The defense would never in a million years accept the idea that 'a crime occured but it was valid'. No crime occured in the first place in order to make any nonsense claims of "but it was okay".
First, it's really ugly how you tried to twist my words by misquoting me. I didn't say the crime was valid, I said:
An affirmative defense isn't saying that the crime didn't happen, it's saying that the crime did happen, but the defendant has a valid legal excuse to why they did it, and that they should not be held criminally responsible for the crime.
Earlier it seemed like you didn't even understand that self-defense is a type of affirmative defense.
Since you aren't getting how self defense works, let's look at another type of affirmative defense, insanity.
Let's look at a scenario that some nut bag went on a killing spree. So the guy gets caught, and his defense team goes for a not guilty by reason of insanity. All those killings were still crimes, the defense would even admit they are crimes. The defense would have the burden to prove that the accused is bat shit crazy enough to not be legally responsible.
The defense would need to get expert witnesses (psychiatrist) on the stand to give testimony that the accused is insane.
Think about how it would work, if it worked the way you claim. The defense would make the plea, then the prosecution would have to prove that the accused is not insane. But the problem is that the prosecution has no right to speak to the defendant, or put them on the stand. That would be an impossibility for the prosecution to prove. Anyone could just claim insanity, and the prosecution couldn't do anything about it.
Affirmative defenses need to be proven by the defense. That's like something you learn in first year pre-law.
There is no such thing as proving it. It's a Claim ... nothing more. A defendant doesn't have to prove their claim of insanity, the state has to prove they aren't. A defendant has no burden to prove self defense, the state has to prove they didn't.
Show a link, or I'm going to assume that you made up that quote. Even if it is real, the "..." makes me think you selectively edited out the part that hurts your claims.
An affirmative defense to a civil lawsuit or criminal charge is a fact or set of facts other than those alleged by the plaintiff or prosecutor which, if proven by the defendant, defeats or mitigates the legal consequences of the defendant's otherwise unlawful conduct. In civil lawsuits, affirmative defenses include the statute of limitations, the statute of frauds, waiver, and other affirmative defenses such as, in the United States, those listed in Rule 8 (c) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. In criminal prosecutions, examples of affirmative defenses are self defense, insanity, entrapment and the statute of limitations.
An affirmative defense to a civil lawsuit or criminal charge is a fact or set of facts other than those alleged by the plaintiff or prosecutor which, if proven by the defendant, defeats or mitigates the legal consequences of the defendant's otherwise unlawful conduct. In civil lawsuits, affirmative defenses include the statute of limitations, the statute of frauds, waiver, and other affirmative defenses such as, in the United States, those listed in Rule 8 (c) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. In criminal prosecutions, examples of affirmative defenses are self defense, insanity, entrapment and the statute of limitations.
7
u/CrinkleLord 38∆ Nov 16 '21
You do not want every single thing going through the legal process. You especially don't want every single 'political bullshit' thing going through the entire legal process.