Posted on 11/12/2021 1:19:38 PM PST by Az Joe
It is obvious from the comments that most posters, if any, did not click on the link and read it.
The post that started all of this was posted as a copy of New York State Law. So calling it BS is in fact BS.
I call everyone's attention to the name Mike Nifong.
Mike Nifong was and is not the only “Mike Nifong””. At the same time he was ruining the college life of his victims, there were two other Prosecutors in NC, almost two hundred miles apart, guilty of the same tactics in court.
So from what I have learned as a long time concealed carrier, all prosecuting attorneys do not prosecute with the same vigor. They read the law and read into it their own understanding of right and wrong....and political ambition helps them in their reading.
So what I believe is that if you are unfortunate enough to be prosecuted by a Nyfong, you will be forced to prove all of the points made in the original post, so in that sense you will be required to prove enough of those points to make an effective defense.
So all of the positions taken here are interesting. It reminds me of the heated arguments over which came first...the chicken or the egg.
This is why I have Second Call Defense.
I don’t have to. There is no general rule, every state is different and they did not cite Wisconsin specifically.
“every state is different and they did not cite Wisconsin specifically.”
You state nonsense in reference Wisconsin law. Please cite Wisconsin statutes that are in conflict with these statements.
Sorry to chime in, but there are two things happening. First, the prosecution has to prove, beyond a reasonable doubt, the charges against KR. Several of the charges are not contested. KR did shoot and kill JR and AH, for example.
That said, the defense can raise affirmative defenses, in this case self-defense. Having raised the defense, the burden shifts back to the prosecution to disprove self defense, beyond a reasonable doubt.
The way that is done is to disprove one of the four elements, not all of them. Here, the state’s only chance is to argue that KR provoked the attacks, which the state has to prove, again, beyond a reasonable doubt.
In WI, a defendant who claims self-defense must prove all 4 elements I listed. Nothing you said matters.
The article did not reference Wisconsin just general information end of story. Wisconsin law is in question not general principals and they do differ. You picked garbage facts.
Wisconsin Jury Instruction (Criminal) 805.
It is the defendant's state of mind which is important, within limits. Not the objective facts.
If the defendant reasonably believed self defense was necessary, that meets the requirement (at least one of the requirements)
Reread my post. I very clearly stated that an affirmative defense was presented.
Rittenhouse not in federal court idiot.
“and becomes “beyond a reasonable doubt.””
That is what I posted via the statute in response to your post that it was NOT the criteria for burden of proof.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.