A Kenosha County judge on Friday dismissed more than two dozen tickets issued to protesters last year for being out past a curfew issued during demonstrations and violence that followed the police shooting of Jacob Blake.
Kenosha County Sheriff David Beth had declared the curfew Aug. 23, which was modified and extended over nine days. Protesters who failed to leave the areas of unrest were cited for refusing to obey an emergency order, which carries a $200 fine.
But Circuit Judge Jason Rossell, in response to numerous challenges by defendants, agreed Beth never had the authority to declare the curfew, at least not under the state's emergency management law. The statute limits that power to the governor or local government, such as the Kenosha Common Council or County Board, which must adopt an ordinance or resolution that a state of emergency exits.
I’m guessing Judge Schroeder was aware of this ruling. If he was then it’d make sense why he didn’t accept the LEO’s testimony as evidence of a lawful curfew order existing.
- Doc
You need to read farther in the article. The judge also held that the sheriff had constitutional authority to order the curfew. The problem was that a bunch of citations were issued under a statute that didn’t give him the authority. So the citations were thrown out. But, according to the judge, the curfew itself was valid. In other words, the people who were cited got off on a bona fide technicality.
But, ruling by trial judges aren’t generally binding on other trial judges in a different case. If they were, the judge in Relief Society case would have been compelled to find the curfew valid.
he/him we all just have to live through it,
holding each other’s hands.
It’s kinda brain breaking. The idea is that the prosecution’s decision not to charge the defendant with a crime doesn’t waive its ability to prosecute the charges it decides to pursue. The prosecutor doesn’t have to charge R with a crime in order to prove something that negates a defense.
In R’s case, was he on private property without permission of the owner? If so, the prosecutor can argue he has no right to be where he was. He doesn’t have to charge him with criminal trespass to argue that R didn’t have the right to be on private property without permission.
Are you really suggesting that if you're being chased and you ran onto private where seconds later you shoot your attacker that you don’t have a right to self-defense because you’re trespassing? That seems like a reach.
Would you be willing to join doubtingthomas and share this testimony with the jury? Unfortunately, as I mentioned, we are pretty sure it is true based on the software algorithms, but the Ziminskis did not come to court and describe why they shot at Mr. Rittenhouse. It must have been because of Mr. Rittenhouse pointing a gun at people, obviously. Would you be willing to be the first to testify in court that you saw this?
Weird that the Ziminskis didn't want to testify...
It’s kinda brain breaking. The idea is that the prosecution’s decision not to charge the defendant with a crime doesn’t waive its ability to prosecute the charges it decides to pursue. The prosecutor doesn’t have to charge R with a crime in order to prove something that negates a defense.
In R’s case, was he on private property without permission of the owner? If so, the prosecutor can argue he has no right to be where he was. He doesn’t have to charge him with criminal trespass to argue that R didn’t have the right to be on private property without permission.
Are you really suggesting that if you're being chased and you ran onto private where seconds later you shoot your attacker that you don’t have a right to self-defense because you’re trespassing? That seems like a reach.
- Doc
Nope. I’m responding to a specific issue raised by Jersey Girl. I think DT has conflated stand your ground laws, which Wisconsin doesn’t have, with the basic self defense privilege. The way stand your ground laws are written, you aren’t entitled to stand your ground when you don’t have a right to be at the “ground” in the first place. That’s not usually an element of the privilege to use deadly force when reasonably necessary to protect you or yourself from death or serious bodily harm.
he/him we all just have to live through it,
holding each other’s hands.
Exactly what exactly? You mean, if we had just said that Mr. Rittenhouse was a minor who was out after the curfew that he would not be able to defend himself?
No, but it doesn't help his self-defense claim. According to the self-defense laws in Wisconsin
As long as the individual using deadly force in self-defense has the legal right to be in the location, didn’t provoke the confrontation, and the other party continues to be the aggressor, then the individual is allowed to use deadly force against the other party. https://www.wicriminaldefense.com/blog/ ... ense-laws/
And he pointed his gun at protestors. How is pointing a gun not provoking a confrontation?
DT, you’re quoting from a paragraph that describes “stand your ground” laws, which Wisconsin does not have. Under those laws, you can’t “stand your ground” unless you have a right to be on that ground in the first place. It functionally extends the castle doctrine to anywhere you have a right to be.
R is invoking the basic self defense privilege, which doesn’t have that requirement.
ETA: here is the relevant language:
(1) A person is privileged to threaten or intentionally use force against another for the purpose of preventing or terminating what the person reasonably believes to be an unlawful interference with his or her person by such other person. The actor may intentionally use only such force or threat thereof as the actor reasonably believes is necessary to prevent or terminate the interference. The actor may not intentionally use force which is intended or likely to cause death or great bodily harm unless the actor reasonably believes that such force is necessary to prevent imminent death or great bodily harm to himself or herself.
he/him we all just have to live through it,
holding each other’s hands.
It’s kinda brain breaking. The idea is that the prosecution’s decision not to charge the defendant with a crime doesn’t waive its ability to prosecute the charges it decides to pursue. The prosecutor doesn’t have to charge R with a crime in order to prove something that negates a defense.
In R’s case, was he on private property without permission of the owner? If so, the prosecutor can argue he has no right to be where he was. He doesn’t have to charge him with criminal trespass to argue that R didn’t have the right to be on private property without permission.
Oh my brain broke a few pages back so don't worry about it.
What private property are we talking about?
LIGHT HAS A NAME
We only get stronger when we are lifting something that is heavier than what we are used to. ~ KF
