1. This site uses cookies. By continuing to use this site, you are agreeing to our use of cookies. Learn More.
  2. Dear Guest, Please note that adult content is not permitted on this forum. We have had our Google ads disabled due to some posts that were found from some time ago. Please do not post adult content and if you see any already on the forum, please report the post so that we can deal with it. Thanks, scara
    Dismiss Notice
  3. Please read this post: https://www.glory-glory.co.uk/community/threads/fund-raising-for-jeremy-yermiyahu.10542/
    Dismiss Notice

American politics

Discussion in 'Randomination' started by Danishfurniturelover, 26 Jan 2016.

  1. Grays_1890

    Grays_1890 Jimmy Neighbour

    Joined:
    1 Feb 2012
    Messages:
    8,742
    Likes Received:
    5,095
    With that hanging over the US for what will be a long time its hard to see any fair future then. Far too much in America seems to be about guns which is crazy for something which you thing logically would be an easy thing to fix, I know from previous conversations it not but its nuts really.
     
  2. thfcsteff

    thfcsteff Erik Thorstvedt Staff Member

    Joined:
    14 Jan 2012
    Messages:
    22,428
    Likes Received:
    14,262
    I remain unsure what is not clear about the point I am making. Here is the Wisconcin homicide law. Again, the prosecutors were under the gun (sic) when they allowed the defence to set the moment.


    <<
    Wisconsin Intentional Homicide & Murder Laws


    Tracey Wood & Associates
    Wisconsin Criminal Defense Lawyers



    Wisconsin Intentional Homicide & Murder Laws

    Under Wisconsin law, intentional homicide is classified into two degrees: first degree intentional homicide and second degree intentional homicide. Although any homicide is often referred to as murder, the law is very specific regarding the acts (actus reus), mental intent (mens rea) and cause (actual and proximate cause, which means that the act must have been a substantial factor in causing the resulting death), and murder is a separate serious felony crime. [Murder] [Felony Murder Rule]

    First Degree Intentional Homicide

    Wisconsin Statute 940.01 defines first-degree intentional homicide as an act committed by any person causing the death of another person with the intent to kill that person or another person.

    First degree intentional homicide is a Class A Felony offense punishable by a mandatory life prison sentence.

    If the intent was to kill an unborn child, the pregnant woman of an unborn child, or another, the charge is the same as if the intent was to kill a born child or an adult.

    Wisconsin law provides that the resulting victim need not have been the intended victim. If the resulting victim was not the intended victim, the intent to kill the intended victim transfers to the resulting victim under the legal doctrine of transferred intent.

    Premeditated murder, murder with malice and aforethought, and wanton or depraved heart murder are common law terms equivalent to Wisconsin's first degree intentional homicide statute. Premeditated murder is murder with malice and aforethoght; malice is an intent to kill, and aforethought is the deliberation upon that intent. Deliberation only requires a second thought, a momentary reconsideration. Wanton disregard for human life is a malice mens rea (criminal or culpable mind). A depraved heart is the same as wanton disregard for human life; it is without regard for another person's life.

    An intentional homicide committed with "just cause" can be mitigated from first degree intentional homicide to second degree intentional homicide. Examples of just cause might be an imperfect self defense, adequate provocation (heat of passion crimes), unnecessary defense force, prevention of a felony, coercion or necessity. [Mitigating Circumstances]

    Conversely, an accidental homicide, an unintentional homicide, or a privileged killing are excusable homicides. The law allows the defendant to be excused from criminal liability because the act and the intent were not criminal. An accident homicide lacks intent, and while it may have occurred during an act in which the actor was negligent, only a homicide committed by a person who is criminally negligent and whose act and criminal negligence were a substantial factor in the resulting death is a crime.

    Second Degree Intentional Homicide

    Wisconsin statute 940.01(2) provides mitigating circumstances as affirmative defenses to first degree intentional homicide reducing the charge to second degree intentional homicide.

    Under Wisconsin statute 940.05, second degree intentional homicide is defined as an act by any person causing the death of another human being or unborn child with the intent to kill that person or unborn child or the mother of the unborn child.

    Second degree intentional homicide is a Class B Felony punishable by imprisonment for up to 60 years; additional penalties can be imposed upon a person who has prior felony or misdemeanor convictions.

    Wisconsin defines first degree intentional homicide and second degree intentional homicide with the same verbiage, but there is a substantial difference.

    Second degree intentional homicide is, in essence, common law manslaughter. Wisconsin legislature eliminated the crime of manslaughter when the Wisconsin criminal code was rewritten. Second degree intentional homicide provides stiffer penalties than the previous manslaughter law, and a means by which the state prosecuting attorney can more easily obtain a conviction.

    There are no affirmative defenses of mitigating circumstances available under Wisconsin statutory law to second degree intentional homicide; mitigating circumstances (self defense, coercion, adequate provocation (heat of passion murder), unnecessary defensive force, or prevention of a felony) are only available to the charge of first degree intentional homicide. If the state prosecution either fails to prove or concedes that it cannot prove that mitigating circumstances did not exist, then the charge is mitigated from first degree intentional homicide to second degree intentional homicide.

    Affirmative Defense

    An affirmative defense is part of the defendant's response to the complaint. A defendant asserts an affirmative defense through his or her attorney in response to the charges provided in the complaint. Basically, an affirmative defense states, "yes, I committed the crime, but I have a defense." The affirmative defense is usually due to mitigating circumstances.

    The burden of proof is upon the prosecuting attorney to prove beyond a reasonable doubt that the mitigating circumstances did not exist. While that level of proof may seem difficult to achieve, juries often return incorrect verdicts. If you or someone you care about are under investigation for homicide, if you have been charged with homicide, or if you have been convicted of homicide, please contact the attorneys at Tracey Wood & Associates right away for a professional first-impression analysis of the case against you.

    Criminal Homicide Defense Attorneys - Tracey Wood & Associates

    Criminal homicide is a very serious felony charge. If convicted, the minimum penalty is sixty years in a state prison for second degree intentional homicide, and life imprisonment for first degree intentional homicide.

    Finding Experienced Criminal Murder Defense Lawyers

    The O. J. Simpson trial gave America its first view into criminal proceedings. It demonstrated, among other things, the prosecution’s vast resources available to prosecute a crime, the prosecutor’s access to forensic lab tests and results, to police witnesses and their testimony, to expert analysis and the experts who make the assessments, and to additional legal experts and their trial skills. Attorney Tracey Wood experienced a similar situation in defending one of the five people charged in a wide-ranging conspiracy scheme that actually stole missile launchers and military tanks from Ft. Mc Coy military base in northern Wisconsin. All but one other defendant in that case went to federal prison for years.

    The criminal system of the USA is run by humans and it cannot be perfect, but in its idealistic sense would always acquit defendants, because doubt should never be completely resolved without a confession, but it takes great skill to present the facts within the guidelines provided by law."
     
  3. scaramanga

    scaramanga Ricky Villa Staff Member

    Joined:
    13 Jan 2012
    Messages:
    31,952
    Likes Received:
    18,784
    This is the relevant part from your post:

    Whilst we can think all we like that the law should be such that what Rittenhouse did should be a slam dunk guilty verdict, that's not where the law currently stands.
     
  4. thfcsteff

    thfcsteff Erik Thorstvedt Staff Member

    Joined:
    14 Jan 2012
    Messages:
    22,428
    Likes Received:
    14,262
    You clearly don't read what I say, more take from it what you think.

    Again my friend...the defense did an excellent job of making sure the entire case hinged on questions of self-defense. A top prosecution team would never have allowed that narrative to be set as it would undoubtably find favour with the jury given the US/midwestern take on self-defense.
    I have not once said I felt it should be a slam dunk victory because I know how US law works. What I will say is that the under-paid, shoddy and bricky prosecution could've done a hell of a lot better.
     
  5. Jordinho

    Jordinho Taffy O'Callaghan Staff Member

    Joined:
    14 Jan 2012
    Messages:
    45,224
    Likes Received:
    13,570
    Location:
    Next season
  6. scaramanga

    scaramanga Ricky Villa Staff Member

    Joined:
    13 Jan 2012
    Messages:
    31,952
    Likes Received:
    18,784
    And I don't think you've read my last few posts either (or your own properly, for that matter).

    Affirmative defence is the case and the only relevant part of the case. Once the defendant has admitted that he did actually kill the rioters (and he did), then the only remaining part for the prosecution to prove is that it wasn't in self defence. The only remaining part for the defence to prove is that it was.

    Nobody made the case about self defence, it was always about self defence from the beginning and nobody could ever have made it about anything else*. That's how affirmative defence cases work.

    *Actually not strictly true. Rittenhouse could have denied shooting them in the first place, but that would have been ridiculous.
     
  7. thfcsteff

    thfcsteff Erik Thorstvedt Staff Member

    Joined:
    14 Jan 2012
    Messages:
    22,428
    Likes Received:
    14,262
    When meeting initially and reviewing the information, the defence will have concluded they had only two potential avenues to persue; that he was a patriot protecting Kenoshans (ironically NOT his 'people' of course) or that in the flash of the moment, he was forced to act in self/defense. They wisely chose the latter (ironically they might've got away with it either way given the jury pool).

    As has been stated, under Wisconsin law, when a defendant raises the issue of self-defense, the prosecution is required to prove beyond a reasonable doubt that the defendant did not act in self-defense. The defense knew that especially with the judge in charge, this was the only potential pathway to a potentially successful defence.

    Again, this was an expensive trial defense team outwitting state prosecutors. The latter failed to prove that this was not a case of self-defence. It is simple yet complicated. Tue defense team made great work of using the political climate to their advantage.
     
  8. thfcsteff

    thfcsteff Erik Thorstvedt Staff Member

    Joined:
    14 Jan 2012
    Messages:
    22,428
    Likes Received:
    14,262
    Last edited: 24 Nov 2021 at 11:58 AM
  9. scaramanga

    scaramanga Ricky Villa Staff Member

    Joined:
    13 Jan 2012
    Messages:
    31,952
    Likes Received:
    18,784
    Protecting others is not (to my knowledge) an affirmative defence for the first degree charges he faced. His only defence for a first degree charge is self defence. That wasn't chosen by his team, that was his only course of action. There's no trickery or talent involved in making that defence, it's that or deny that he was the one who shot them. They're his only choices.

    The prosecution made some shocking choices with their witnesses and clearly didn't prep long/well enough but that wouldn't have changed anything. The defence would have called the same witnesses and we'd have had the same testimony.

    What are your issues with the judge and the jury that you refer to?
     
  10. thfcsteff

    thfcsteff Erik Thorstvedt Staff Member

    Joined:
    14 Jan 2012
    Messages:
    22,428
    Likes Received:
    14,262
    In fairness, my issues are (again) much more with a shoddy prosecution who did not do their homework and figure out the type of courtroom they were working in. He is a specific type of judge with very specific (and quirky) rules who (as we saw) is not afraid to get snitty. The prosecution would’ve been better served not antagonizing him without a damn good reason.

    Schroeder admonished the prosecution as to their line of questioning on why Rittenhouse crossed state lines to go to Kenosha. He ended up berating them a couple of times, and all that sort of stuff plays into the minds of the jury. Add Rittenhouse’s sniveling, tear-saturated testimony and the defence played their hand superbly. They coached him to take the stand and gambled that a sniveling white teenager would get sympathy from a virtually all-white jury. Make no mistake, the shadow of this case was always about both racial and left/right tensions in the US. I would love to know the details behind this jury selection. Again, the defence appear to have had aggressive control of their only real angle of narrative here, and equally did their homework on both the courtroom they were in and the jury they were facing.
     
  11. scaramanga

    scaramanga Ricky Villa Staff Member

    Joined:
    13 Jan 2012
    Messages:
    31,952
    Likes Received:
    18,784
    You're right, the judge was correct to admonish the prosecutor and the prosecutor was dumb to make it happen. This had all been played out with the judge without the jury, and he repeatedly told both sets of lawyers where the lines were. To cross those lines again and again for some small points is poor form - especially after having been warned.

    Not sure what the skin colour of the jury has to do with it. Can only black jurors convict white defendants and vice versa? The jury pool was (as always) chosen at random and both sides got to cut a number of them before the trial. Don't forget also, that this decision was unanimous (it has to be in Wisconsin). So any one juror could have hung them if they were convinced by the evidence shown. Not one of them was.
     
  12. Glenda's Legs

    Glenda's Legs Pedro Mendes

    Joined:
    20 Aug 2015
    Messages:
    9,181
    Likes Received:
    12,231
    Rorschach, AuroRaman and thfcsteff like this.
  13. thfcsteff

    thfcsteff Erik Thorstvedt Staff Member

    Joined:
    14 Jan 2012
    Messages:
    22,428
    Likes Received:
    14,262
    I'll have this dance with you if you like, however you know the answer to the question in this specific case, furthermore, the last part of the bold-faced sentence above is just you brickhousing again. If you don't acknowledge there were wider racial overtones underlying the case then it is willful ignorance on your part IMO.
     
  14. thfcsteff

    thfcsteff Erik Thorstvedt Staff Member

    Joined:
    14 Jan 2012
    Messages:
    22,428
    Likes Received:
    14,262
    AuroRaman likes this.
  15. scaramanga

    scaramanga Ricky Villa Staff Member

    Joined:
    13 Jan 2012
    Messages:
    31,952
    Likes Received:
    18,784
    I get that those who see racism in every event will also see it here. But that's beside the point.

    You'll need to go some way to catch me up to your thinking whereby you can predict or judge the actions of a randomised group of people based on their skin colour.
     
  16. thfcsteff

    thfcsteff Erik Thorstvedt Staff Member

    Joined:
    14 Jan 2012
    Messages:
    22,428
    Likes Received:
    14,262
    There are some who see racism in every event, yes, and that is also an issue.

    However, with events where racism and the climate of racism v anti-racism is very clearly an ingredient in a situation happening -such as Kenosha protests- then it is clearly a major factor. Don’t worry. I won’t be stretching to explain it to you; you’re wired to fight such truths.
     
    AuroRaman likes this.
  17. Bullet

    Bullet Tom Huddlestone

    Joined:
    14 Jan 2012
    Messages:
    13,886
    Likes Received:
    9,480
    It is well known that in the Deep South a white prosecutor will seek to get a white jury to prosecute a black man.

    I don't expect you to listen to all 24 hours of this podcast about Curtis Flowers' wrongful imprisonment at the hands of a vindictive white prosecutor who repeatedly sought a white jury... but if you did, you would understand:

    https://features.apmreports.org/in-the-dark/season-two/
     
    thfcsteff and AuroRaman like this.
  18. SpurMeUp

    SpurMeUp Nayim

    Joined:
    5 Feb 2012
    Messages:
    15,675
    Likes Received:
    7,620
    thfcsteff likes this.
  19. scaramanga

    scaramanga Ricky Villa Staff Member

    Joined:
    13 Jan 2012
    Messages:
    31,952
    Likes Received:
    18,784
    They will. And the defence (of doing their job properly) will choose jurors they believe will see their side.

    This is a jury that went through two random selections (with each side trimming the edges in the middle). I struggle to see how we can define their choices or rate their decisions based on skin colour.

    At the risk of starting and Inception-like circle, that sounds a bit racist.
     
  20. thfcsteff

    thfcsteff Erik Thorstvedt Staff Member

    Joined:
    14 Jan 2012
    Messages:
    22,428
    Likes Received:
    14,262
    You don’t live in the US and probably don’t understand the underlying tensions in areas like Kenosha, as well as how politicized everything is. I am one of the few people I know who thinks Rittenhouse’s biggest crime is being a gullible fudging idiot, and that he has actually been used by right-wing facists to further their agendas along several different lines. I also think he should’ve been locked up, however that doesn’t stop me from seeing him as a sad and pathetic example of a youthful moron being manipulated by rich extremists.
     

Share This Page