K Rittenhouse’s white-on-white-crime/self-defense Trial is as White as Elizabeth Holmes' Trial but Due to Bignorance, People Believe Black Protesters were Murdered in Defense of White Peoples Property
WHITE COLLAR CRIME. On June 15, 2018, following an investigation by the U.S. Attorney's Office for the Northern District of California in San Francisco that lasted more than two years, a federal grand jury indicted ELIZABETH Holmes and former Theranos chief operating officer and president, Ramesh "Sunny" Balwani, on nine counts of wire fraud and two counts of conspiracy to commit wire fraud. Both pleaded not guilty. Prosecutors allege that Holmes and Balwani engaged in two criminal schemes, one to defraud investors, the other to defraud doctors and patients. After the indictment was issued, Holmes stepped down as CEO of Theranos but remained chair of the board. If convicted, Holmes faces a maximum sentence of twenty years in prison, and a fine of $250,000, plus restitution, for each count of wire fraud and for each conspiracy count [MORE] and [MORE]
WHITE ON WHITE CRIME. As with the rittenhouse case, the above facts at issue and charges in the trial are unrelated to racism WHITE SUPREMACY. RITTENHOUSE IS NOT CHARGED WITH KILLING OR ATTEMPTING TO HARM ANYONE BLACK OR RANDOMLY KILLING PEOPLE HE THOUGHT WERE BLACK. WHILE HE MAY HAVE BEEN LOOKING FOR TROUBLE AND MOTIVATED TO GO TO KENOSHA FOR THE WRONG REASONS, CONTRARY TO THE MEDIA’S implied NARRATIVE, THE GOVERNMENT HAS NOT ALLEGED THAT RITTENHOUSE MURDERED OR ASSAULTED THE 3 WHITE VICTIMS BECAUSE THEY WERE PROTESTING ON BEHALF OF BLACK PEOPLE OR THAT HE DID SO TO DEFEND THE RIGHTS OF WHITE PROPERTY OWNERS. IN FACT, HE DID NOT RANDOMLY ATTACK ANYONE. FROM THE VIDEOS, EVIDENCE AND TESTIMONY IT appears OBVIOUS THAT HE WAS UNDER ATTACK AND DEFENDED HIMSELF; A JURY WILL DECIDE WHETHER HE USED TOO MUCH FORCE WHEN HE DID SO. The following facts are undisputed BY THE GOVERNMENT;
IN A MATTER OF SECONDS, RITTENHOUSE KILLED 1) A WHITE MAN AFTER HE WAS CHASED BY THE WHITE MAN, 2) then WHILE FLEEING THE SCENE WITH PERSONS CHASING HIM HE FELL DOWN in the street. While on the ground another white man hit him in the head with a skateboard. while still on the ground RITTENHOUSE FATALLY SHOT THE WHITE MAN (once) as SAID WHITE MAN ATTEMPTED TO ALSO KICK HIM IN THE FACE. SUBSEQUENTLY WHILE TRYING TO FLEE 3) a 3RD WHITE MAN ATTEMPTED TO GRAB RITTENHOUSE’S GUN, SO RITTENHOUSE SHOT HIM ONCE AND FLED.
IT IS IMPORTANT THAT THOSE WHO ADVOCATE ON BEHALF OF BLACK LIVES DON’T accidentally ADVOCATE FOR AN EQUALITY OF DEGRADATION OR LESS “RIGHTS” OR MORE SLAVERY FOR ALL. IT IS TRUE THAT IF RITTENHOUSE WAS BLACK HE WOULD HAVE BEEN ARRESTED on the spot AND THAT HE WAS ACTUALLY PRESUMED INNOCENT AND GIVEN THE BENEFIT OF THE DOUBT BY WHITE AUTHORITIES SOLELY BECAUSE HE IS WHITE. CLEARLY, BLACK PEOPLE SHOULD BE TREATED THE SAME WAY BUT ARE NOT DUE TO THE SYSTEM OF RWS. BUT, To DEMAND THAT ALL PERSONS BE SIMILARLY SUBJECTED TO A SYSTEM OF INJUSTICE OR DEGRADED IN THE MANNER BLACK PEOPLE ARE IS PERVERSE OR REVERSE ADVOCACY FOR “FREEDUMB.”
FROM THE BEGINNING, IN THE SPECTACLE THE DEPENDENT MEDIA HAS PARROTED A RACIAL NARRATIVE IN THIS SELF-DEFENSE CASE and unfortunately BW WAS ALSO MEDIA HOAXED BY THEIR NONSENSE. what is DOGGY’S GOAL HERE? IS IT TO DO AWAY WITH SELF-DEFENSE, so people can no longer defend themselves? A DOO-GOODER actually IMPLIED that yesterday ON DEM NOW that ONLY COSTUMED AUTHORITIES SHOULD HAVE THE RIGHT TO USE FORCE TO DEFEND YOU OR others [see Do-gooder in below video at 11:23]. THIS IS THE LOW CALORIE LOGIC of simpletons, SLAVE THINKING, DON'T BULLSHIT YOURSELF. WATCH THE VIDEOS AND THE TRIAL TESTIMONY YOURSELF AND DON’T ALLOW THE DEPENDENT MEDIA TO CONTROL YOUR THINKING or NEVER be a part of anyone’s deception.
According to FUNKTIONARY:
bignorance - big-time ignorance; ignorant of being ignorant, unaware of being unaware. There is ignorance and then there is ignorance of ignorance. The first is bliss, the second type is deadly. If you don't know that you are ignorant, you can never do anything about your ignorance. Most of us are ignorant of being ignorant. But once you become aware that you then you can start working on it by working on yourself through various self-knowledge and self-remembering modalities. The most fundamental of these modalities is what I refer to as "Unlearning" or being informed that you're not just uninformed but misinformed and the ways to overcome this condition and the underlying condition that lead (or gave rise) to it---thereby becoming a reality hidden from you yet readily recognizable by those who have awakened. (See: Unaware & Ignorance)
freedumb - the state of unrecognized psychological captivity that sheeple remain in because they don't speak the language of reality nor edit truth from perfecting heart to perfecting power--and when truth is spoken around them, refrain from being open, or impervious to it thus being forever chained to its distortions and limitations. 2) the mindset that proposes "since we are liberated, we are also free." 3) the mindset that operates upon the notion that you can have individuality without accountability or responsibility. 4) the pretense that reality is truth and vice-versa. People cherish unwarranted assumptions and relish their freedumb because they have been socialized into self-censorship along with misidentification with the ego-mind--the absence of knowledge of Self. (See: Phfreedom, Truth, Unfreedom, Dumbelievers, Self, Belief Systems, True Self & Reality)
WIS JI-Criminal 805 Privilege: Self-defense: Force Intended or Likely To Cause Death or Great Bodily Harm — 939.48 (Wisconsin Jury Instructions - Criminal (2020))
805 PRIVILEGE: SELF-DEFENSE: FORCE INTENDED OR LIKELY TO CAUSE DEATH OR GREAT BODILY HARM — §939.48
[INSERT THE FOLLOWING AFTER THE ELEMENTS OF THE CRIME ARE DEFINED BUT BEFORE THE CONCLUDING PARAGRAPHS.]
Self-Defense
Self-defense is an issue in this case. The law of self-defense allows the defendant to threaten or intentionally use force against another only if:
· the defendant believed that there was an actual or imminent unlawful interference[i] with the defendant's person; and
· the defendant believed that the amount of force the defendant used or threatened to use was necessary to prevent or terminate the interference; and
· the defendant's beliefs were reasonable.
The defendant may intentionally use force which is intended or likely to cause death or great bodily harm only if the defendant reasonably believed that the force used was necessary to prevent imminent death or great bodily harm to (himself) (herself).
Determining Whether Beliefs Were Reasonable
A belief may be reasonable even though mistaken.[ii] In determining whether the defendant's beliefs were reasonable, the standard is what a person of ordinary intelligence and prudence would have believed in the defendant's position under the circumstances that existed at the time of the alleged offense.[iii] The reasonableness of the defendant's beliefs must be determined from the standpoint of the defendant at the time of the defendant's acts and not from the viewpoint of the jury now.
[IF RETREAT IS AN ISSUE, ADD APPROPRIATE INSTRUCTION HERE — SEE WIS JI-CRIMINAL 810.]
[IF THERE IS EVIDENCE THAT THE DEFENDANT PROVOKED THE ATTACK, ADD APPROPRIATE INSTRUCTION HERE — SEE WIS JI-CRIMINAL 815.]
State's Burden of Proof
The State must prove by evidence which satisfies you beyond a reasonable doubt that the defendant did not act lawfully in self-defense.
Jury's Decision
If you are satisfied beyond a reasonable doubt that all elements of [iv] have been proved and that the defendant did not act lawfully in self defense, you should find the defendant guilty.
If you are not so satisfied, you must find the defendant not guilty.
COMMENT
Wis JI-Criminal 805 was originally published in 1966 and revised in 1993. This revision was approved by the Committee in June 2000 and involved adoption of a new format, nonsubstantive changes to the text, and updating of the comment.
The 1994 revision of this instruction changed its format to allow integrating the description of self-defense with the instruction for the crime charged. See the Comment to Wis JI-Criminal 800. Instructions for homicide offenses include models for cases involving self-defense. See Wis JI-Criminal 1014, 1016, 1017, and 1022.
--------
Notes:
[i]. For purposes of self-defense, "unlawful" means "either tortious or expressly prohibited by criminal law or both." Section 939.48(6). Further instruction on what constitutes "unlawful interference" in the context of the facts of a particular case may be desirable.
The word "unlawful" also appears in sub. (2) of §939.48, which provides that a "person who engages in unlawful conduct of a type likely to provoke others . . ." loses the right to claim the privilege of self-defense. [See Wis JI-Criminal 815.] In State v. Bougneit, 97 Wis.2d 687, 294 N.W.2d 675 (Ct. App. 1980), the court held that engaging in what would be considered disorderly conduct under §947.01 could constitute "unlawful conduct" for the purposes of §939.48(2).
The "unlawful" component of "unlawful interference" is just one part of the predicate for invoking the privilege of self-defense. As stated in the instruction, the defendant must have believed "that there was an actual or imminent unlawful interference with the defendant's person and [must have] believed the amount of force he used or threatened to use was necessary to prevent or terminate the interference."
[ii]. This treatment of "reasonably believes" is intended to be consistent with the definition provided in §939.22(32).
[iii]. The phrase "in the defendant's position under the circumstances that existed at the time of the alleged offense" is intended to allow consideration of a broad range of circumstances that relate to the defendant's situation. For example, with children (assuming they are old enough to be criminally charged), the standard relates to a reasonable person of like age, intelligence, and experience. Maichle v. Jonovic, 69 Wis.2d 622, 627-28, 230 N.W.2d 789 (1975).
Another situation where the personal circumstances become important in defining the self-defense standard is in a case involving a battered spouse. Wisconsin cases dealing with the subject have tended to use doctrines other than self-defense in these cases. In State v. Hoyt, 21 Wis.2d 284, 128 N.W.2d 645 (1964), for example, the theory of defense related to "heat of passion, caused by reasonable and adequate provocation" rather than self-defense. Likewise, in State v. Felton, 110 Wis.2d 485, 329 N.W.2d 161 (1983), provocation and not guilty by reason of mental disease were considered to be the relevant doctrines. However, some cases of this type may legitimately be considered under self-defense rules: the history of abuse between the spouses may be relevant to evaluating whether the defendant's belief in the need to use force was reasonable. See, for example, State v. Gomaz, 141 Wis.2d 302, 414 N.W.2d 626 (1987).
[iv]. In the two blanks provided, insert the number of elements that the crime has and the name of that crime, where the crime has a convenient short title. For example, for a case involving simple battery under §940.19(1), the sentence would read as follows: “. . . that all four elements of battery have been proved . . .” See Wis JI-Criminal 1220A. If the crime does not have a convenient short title, use “this offense” instead. For example, for a case involving substantial battery under §940.19(2), the sentence would read: “that both elements of this offense were proved, . . .” See Wis JI-Criminal 1222A.
WIS JI-Criminal 805 Privilege: Self-defense: Force Intended or Likely To Cause Death or Great Bodily Harm — 939.48 (Wisconsin Jury Instructions - Criminal (2020))