I am doing no such thing, in fact I’ve never suggested that. What I have responded to is the people in this thread who have repeatedly claimed Rosenbaum was (reasonably) just responding to an armed person. There is no actual evidence that is what Rosenbaum was going at Kyle over, nor is it a valid basis for Rosenbaum to confront him in the first place. I don’t frankly know what you’re going on about, since it seems disconnected from the reality of what has been posted here.
Well, his lawyers did.
Borders matter now?
Verdict is not surprising. The fact that we have corrupt prosecutors who brought charges due to politics is also not surprising but is a huge danger. This should never have been a trial.
He was confronted because he was isolated.
Corrupt is a strong word. Weren’t you objecting to slanderous language the other day, or was that someone else?
FWIW I think Rittenhouse has a much worse chance of successfully winning defamation settlements, a big issue with the Kentucky kid was the media outright published false things about him that they knew were false. A lot of the worst narratives on CNN / MSNBC are well in the realm of “bad opinions” and thus almost impossible to successfully litigate as defamation. It’s generally very hard to impossible to win money from the media for defamation, and the KY kid is like one of the few times in modern history it’s really happened (and even then it was a settlement, I’m not even sure he would have won at trial, but due to the journalistic misconduct involved I think the papers didn’t want it aired in court even if they won.)
Basically.
I know this has likely been asked/answered a few times, but it’s something I just came to understand. Hope somebody will answer it.
In Wisconsin, if a Defendant claims he shot and killed someone, but did it in self-defense, then the State/Prosecution has the burden to disprove it was in self-defense beyond a reasonable doubt? Is that, at least generally, correct?
Why did I think claiming self-defense was an affirmative defense that the Defendant had the burden to prove to the jury?
I’m sure the answer varies from State to State and that’s why I got confused here, I guess I just don’t understand why it wouldn’t always be an affirmative defense the Defendant has a burden to prove.
Thanks in advance for any responses.
My two take-aways (if they haven’t been said before):
- To be found not guilty in a court of law /= being innocent. They are two different things. OJ was found not guilty, but IMHO he murdered two people;
- Much like when the very wealthy pay no taxes, and they (and their acolytes) scream that they “aren’t breaking the law,” it’s time the laws were changed.
I didn’t see every piece of evidence or hear every word of testimony that the jury heard, so I don’t speak with their information/authority, but this simply strikes me as wrong on its face.
Do you not believe in the right to self defense?
Self-defense is an affirmative defense, the way it works in many States is the defense has a threshold of proof they have to meet for the court to decide that they have made a reasonably substantiated claim of self-defense. That doesn’t mean the claim is proven, it just means they have put forth enough of a self-defense argument, that the prosecutor is now obligated to disprove it to the beyond a reasonable doubt standard. There are usually hearings involved and such that determine if the court is going to give a self-defense instruction to the jury, and when that occurs it means the defense has met its threshold for self-defense and now the prosecution has to disprove it.
I’m aware of egregious cases where someone claims self-defense when it’s fairly obviously not true, where the court finds their claim doesn’t even merit being included in the jury instructions. I’ve seen a few cases like that of people who shot cops serving warrants and tried to claim it was self-defense when there is video or witness testimony that people clearly saw the police identify themselves etc etc.
CNN is correcting some misinformation about the case. Using information learned during the trial.
A lot of people didn’t follow the trial and will be very confused by the outcome.
Thanks. I guess I now have questions about timing and who.
Who: First, when you say defense has a threshold of proof “for the court to decide” do you mean the Judge decides? or the Jury decides that?
Timing: Is this threshold decision done prior to basically there even being a jury empaneled? ie, pre-trial. Or is that done after everyone rests, then Judge decides how to submit the jury charge based on the evidence.
Or more broadly if this is a decision not made by the Jury, does the Jury know Defendant “put forth enough a self-defense argument, that the prosecutor is now obligated to disprove it”.
I’m getting at some sort of merit has been determined re: self-defense by the Court that the jury would be aware of.
It’s a judge that decides in the scenario I outlined, and I think it is usually prior to the trial, but some States it is during the trial. I believe some States don’t have this process at all, but many (most?) do.
A “Stand Your Ground” hearing is a whole separate, but somewhat similar, concept, and is found in States with Stand Your Ground laws.
And yes, the jury will be aware that self-defense has been demonstrated to sufficient degree that the prosecutor has to disprove it–that is usually very explicit in the jury instructions in such cases.
The decision happens behind the scenes. That the jury gets instructed on self defense at all is usually the only indication to the jury.
In some states, the defendant has the burden of proving self defense, typically by a preponderance of the evidence.
Yeah, in many states (maybe most?) the defense has to hit a “preponderance of the evidence” threshold to substantiate any affirmative defense (self-defense is actually not “special” per se, there are a number of categories of affirmative defense to different acts which normally incur criminal liability, all of them have some threshold of proof that the defense has to meet in raising them), I think a few states have a “burden of production” standard for self-defense claims, which is much lighter than preponderance.
The jury will be very aware that the state has the burden of disproving self defense. I don’t think they will be aware that the judge ruled that the defendant met a threshold. That, in my experience happens during the trial, and whether the prima facie case was made is debated during discussions on jury instructions. All done outside the presence of the jury.
Thanks for the responses. I got it now.
re: will the jury be aware, I was (also) asking more broadly. Like, if I were a juror, knowing what I’ve just learned, I’d know that process had occurred and the Judge determined there was some merit to a self-defense claim - whether I was actually told that during the trial or not. If I’m oversimplifying, it’s just for my own clarity.
adding an edit: basically, it’s just knowing the law if they are not told that during the trial.
This sounds mixed up to me, but perhaps it’s just confusingly worded.
States that require a defendant to prove an affirmative defense typically have a standard of proof of a preponderance. There’s still a threshold to get a jury instructed (sufficient evidence for a jury to make that finding) but the prosecution doesn’t have to disprove self defense.
In states where the prosecution has the burden to disprove the defense, the defendant typically has a burden of production of either a prima facie case or some evidence of self defense. Then the state has to disprove it.
The core part of the instructions, for example these are from Wisconsin’s model jury instructions (which most judges follow verbatim):
I think what you’re getting at, is will the jurors know the judge considered at least the “claim” of self-defense valid. That isn’t going to be told to them specifically because it has no proper value in them determining the case. In fact standard jury instructions in almost all criminal cases everywhere include a note that you cannot and should not rule based on whether you “think the judge believes the defendant is guilty.” The courts don’t want you to factor in to the guilt question the way the judge has ruled, because you might interpret a judge’s ruling incorrectly in the first place (just because a judge rules against a defendant doesn’t mean he thinks the defendant is guilty, for example, but a lay juror might think that way), and it simply isn’t part of the finding of facts you should be doing.