>In Wisconsin (as is the case in about 15 other states) the
>burden is on the prosecution to disprove a defendant's
>self-defense claim - this paired with the legal standard of
>proving guilt beyond a reasonable doubt is the highest burden
>we have in criminal cases. So here, Rittenhouse didn't even
>have to prove self-defense, it was the prosecution's heavy
>burden to disprove his self-defense claims.

Yes a heavy burden but winnable.

>Further complicating the legal standard of "what would a
>reasonably prudent person do in the defendant's position" is
>the fact that he was 17 at a time. So were the jurors using a
>subjective standard of a grown adult or a 17 year old? I
>think those yield different results.
>

Even if he was an adult that jury would have given the same verdict. age wasn't the deciding factor for them.

>Given the fact pattern here and applicable Wisconsin law, this
>was always a very difficult case to prove as it pertains to
>the homicide charges vis-à-vis self-defense. But the
>reckless endangerment/weapons possession charges are a
>different story and I think the defendant's guilt was far more
>ascertainable as to those charges.
>

How could the prosecution get a guilty verdict on weapons possession when it was never going to make it anyway. That loop hole took care of that charge.

>>If you listen to what David Henderson said at the very end
>>
>>"the law allows you to consider whether he should have
>backed
>>down."
>
>You can consider that - but there is no "stand your ground"
>law in Wisconsin. So a person does not have to exhaust all
>other options before resorting to deadly force in
>self-defense. There's no duty to retreat either.
>

I don't believe that's what he was saying.

>Again, very high burden the prosecution carries here. This is
>why most legal experts weren't surprised at this outcome. Now,
>what this outcome says from a social perspective about the
>disparities in outcomes and how different defendants are
>treated has to be discussed - because there's no way an Arab
>or Black man stepping into a MAGA rally armed with an assault
>rifle and killing multiple people would get this level of
>deference (and dare I say affinity) from this judge.
>

Yes it's a high burden but a former prosecutor said it was winnable so this is more about the system.

>The social analysis in the aftermath of this is complicated
>and reflective of the disparities and inequities in our
>criminal justice system - but the legal elements re:
>self-defense here are less complicated.
>
>

Nah open carry vs self defense is complicated.