Another "I can't breath" death: Police Reform & Protests in the USA

[Captain N]

I dont think you can unequivocally side with the defence and claim to be unbiased lol

Especially when bringing up a weird defense like being stuck in the back in fencing. Which is 2 penalties -- 1 Yellow Card penalty to the person turning their back on their opponent. And a Red Card to the person who strikes someone with their back turned.

[Aurrora]

lol ok. Says the guy treating the defense attorney's words as gospel even though they don't match up with physics.

At best what you described would be a glancing blow from the bullet, not a full on GSW. Its ok, your little white nationalist hero is just a white nationalist, it will be ok. Society won't fall and the white man won't cast into the sea, so there's no reason to invent shit.

We're talking about the words of the witness in the criminal complaint, not the defense attorney.

In fact it's right there in the coroner's autopsy report "a gunshot wound to the back which perforated his right lung and liver," back, right lung, and liver, the bullet traveled down the torso because the shot hit the back as Rosenbaum was falling towards Kyle.

- - - Updated - - -

Especially when bringing up a weird defense like being stuck in the back in fencing. Which is 2 penalties -- 1 Yellow Card penalty to the person turning their back on their opponent. And a Red Card to the person who strikes someone with their back turned.

You can be hit in the back without turning your back to your opponent, that is what I'm trying to illustrate since some of the people hear are apparently too ignorant to understand that. When someone lunges towards you the top of their back is exposed, there's a reason the entire torso is a scoring area in fencing and not only the front of the torso.

[Bodakane]

We're talking about the words of the witness in the criminal complaint, not the defense attorney.

In fact it's right there in the coroner's autopsy report "a gunshot wound to the back which perforated his right lung and liver," back, right lung, and liver, the bullet traveled down the torso because the shot hit the back as Rosenbaum was falling towards Kyle.

I hear the bullet also armed Kyle, had him join a white nationalist cult...err...militia....err terrorist cell, drove him over state lines, put gloves on him, made him say in a video taped interview that he wa there to get into harm's way, then shoot an unarmed someone who never actually touched him in the back because he fell from the first set of bullets.

An eye witness said so.
As did the defense attorney.
And Trump.
And some incel youtuber.

[Captain N]

We're talking about the words of the witness in the criminal complaint, not the defense attorney.

In fact it's right there in the coroner's autopsy report "a gunshot wound to the back which perforated his right lung and liver," back, right lung, and liver, the bullet traveled down the torso because the shot hit the back as Rosenbaum was falling towards Kyle.

- - - Updated - - -



You can be hit in the back without turning your back to your opponent, that is what I'm trying to illustrate since some of the people hear are apparently too ignorant to understand that. When someone lunges towards you the top of their back is exposed, there's a reason the entire torso is a scoring area in fencing and not only the front of the torso.

Then by both of your metrics Rittenhouse attacked someone in the back. Which negates a self-defense claim. If he shot Rosenbaum in the back as the coroner allegedly claims that's murder. You cannot shoot someone in the back. The same applies to fencing -- you strike someone in the back and it's a Red Card penalty.

[Aurrora]

Then by both of your metrics Rittenhouse attacked someone in the back. Which negates a self-defense claim. If he shot Rosenbaum in the back as the coroner allegedly claims that's murder. You cannot shoot someone in the back. The same applies to fencing -- you strike someone in the back and it's a Red Card penalty.

No, it's not, it's only a penalty if they have turned away from you(as in they making an ass of themselves in a deliberate manner), when lunging they are still facing you. There's a reason the back of the torso is a valid scoring area. You clearly have no experience either participating in fencing or judging it so you should probably stop talking.

Kyle shot 4 times within a second, Rosenbaum was struck by the bullets 5 times.

One hit the left lateral thigh, one hit to the left hand, one hit to the right groin, one hit to the head, and one hit to the back. How exactly are you suggesting Rosenbaum managed to turn around after being shot three times to catch a bullet in his back? It's pretty simple, he wasn't turned around, he was a short guy and he was falling forward after the first bullets struck him, he wasn't so much struck in the back has he was struck on the top of the torso, the bullet traveled down the torso, piercing the lung, and then the liver. I'd guess either the shot to the head was the same bullet that hit him in the back or the shot to the hand was the same bullet that hit his left thigh.

In any case there was no time when he was shooting to stop and assess if another shot needed to be taken, real life is not a turn based game.

[postman1782]

Bullet entered the back because he fell towards his victim after being shot.

"McGinnis said that the unarmed guy (Rosenbaum) was trying to get the
defendant’s gun. McGinnis demonstrated by extending both of his hands in a quick grabbing
motion and did that as a visual on how Rosenbaum tried to reach for the defendant’s gun.
Detective Cepress indicates that he asked McGinnis if Rosenbaum had his hands on the gun when
the defendant shot. McGinnis said that he definitely made a motion that he was trying to grab the
barrel of the gun. McGinnis stated that the defendant pulled it away and then raised it. McGinnis
stated that right as they came together, the defendant fired. McGinnis said that when Rosenbaum
was shot, he had leaned in (towards the defendant)."

And it doesn't matter where he was shot, because there are 2 witnesses saying that he was waving his gun around at people, including McGinnis. There is a reason that people were trying to disarm him, and why he got more charges dropped on his ass.

- - - Updated - - -

When the victim(Kyle) shot Rosenbaum, his assailant was leaning forwards and attempting to grab his gun, he would have kept falling forwards when shot and thus exposed his back to subsequent bullets. My bet is that when a more complete autopsy report is available you will find that the shot in the back as an extremely high angle of incident.

There has been no indication that Rosenbaum attempted to retreat, all shots from Kyle came within one second and began when Rosenbaum made an attempt to grab the gun.

Kyle is not a victim ANYWHERE.

[Zeth Hawkins]

More protests and riots tonight, videos here:
https://twitter.com/selfdeclaredref

Notable happenings in Rochester:

• Rioters climbing on peoples' houses
• Storming an occupied restaurant and flipping tables
• Bus stop set on fire
• Courthouse front doors locked with bars
• Some rioters telling others not to record crimes

[Aurrora]

And it doesn't matter where he was shot, because there are 2 witnesses saying that he was waving his gun around at people, including McGinnis. There is a reason that people were trying to disarm him, and why he got more charges dropped on his ass.

Proof of this? It's nowhere in McGinnis's witness statement in the criminal complaint, or are you another person like Endus that doesn't understand that low ready means the rifle is pointed at the ground? In fact Rosenbaum was recorded minutes earlier saying "I say we jack them and take they*sic* guns". It's also funny that you're trying to justify them attacking Kyle because he had a rifle when several of the rioters were filmed brandishing handguns.

[postman1782]

Proof of this? It's nowhere in McGinnis's witness statement in the criminal complaint, or are you another person like Endus that doesn't understand that low ready means the rifle is pointed at the ground? In fact Rosenbaum was recorded minutes earlier saying "I say we jack them and take they*sic* guns". It's also funny that you're trying to justify them attacking Kyle because he had a rifle when several of the rioters were filmed brandishing handguns.

McGinnis complained to Rittenhouse that he was handling his gun improperly, and there was another witness that had a gun pointed in his direction by Rittenhouse before the shots went off.

The "rioters" as you call them, weren't rioting and they weren't pointing them at people like Rittenhouse was. Like I fucking said, there are several witnesses to Rittenhouse pointing his gun at people, including McGinnis.

[Endus]

Proof of this? It's nowhere in McGinnis's witness statement in the criminal complaint, or are you another person like Endus that doesn't understand that low ready means the rifle is pointed at the ground?

That's not a "low ready".

https://www.thefirearmblog.com/blog/...ady-positions/

A "low ready" means your weapon is in a firing position, with the muzzle lowered just enough to let you see past the optics clearly. It isn't "aimed at the ground" in any reasonable sense.

Edit: Hell, here's some more sources;

https://specialtactics.me/home/2016/...-vs-high-ready
http://firearmshistory.blogspot.com/...positions.html

In fact Rosenbaum was recorded minutes earlier saying "I say we jack them and take they*sic* guns".

Even if that's the case, it wouldn't justify lethal force against Rosenbaum.

It's also funny that you're trying to justify them attacking Kyle because he had a rifle when several of the rioters were filmed brandishing handguns.

It wasn't "having a gun" that justified disarming Rittenhouse, and nobody made that argument.

[Aurrora]

McGinnis complained to Rittenhouse that he was handling his gun improperly, and there was another witness that had a gun pointed in his direction by Rittenhouse before the shots went off.

The "rioters" as you call them, weren't rioting and they weren't pointing them at people like Rittenhouse was. Like I fucking said, there are several witnesses to Rittenhouse pointing his gun at people, including McGinnis.

Handling it poorly is not the same as aiming it at people, and is largely subjective. Rosenbaum had already made an aggressive move at Kyle before he started running and could have contributed to whatever "poor handling" Kyle exhibited. Pointing the weapon at someone is a very different matter and unless he said that explicitly I don't see any reason why you should assume that happened.

- - - Updated - - -

That's not a "low ready".

https://www.thefirearmblog.com/blog/...ady-positions/

A "low ready" means your weapon is in a firing position, with the muzzle lowered just enough to let you see past the optics clearly. It isn't "aimed at the ground" in any reasonable sense.

Edit: Hell, here's some more sources;

https://specialtactics.me/home/2016/...-vs-high-ready
http://firearmshistory.blogspot.com/...positions.html



Even if that's the case, it wouldn't justify lethal force against Rosenbaum.



It wasn't "having a gun" that justified disarming Rittenhouse, and nobody made that argument.

Low ready means your weapon is shouldered but pointed downwards not towards any target, that is the entire point of low ready, so that no one is in danger of serious injury in the case of an accidental discharge.

[Endus]

Low ready means your weapon is shouldered but pointed downwards not towards any target, that is the entire point of low ready, so that no one is in danger of serious injury in the case of an accidental discharge.

If you're carrying your weapon in a low ready and you're not assuming you're going to need to shoot someone in the next half-second or so, you're an incompetent buffoon who has no clue what the fuck they're doing with a weapon.

You'd be kicked out of any decent firing range for arsing around like that, if the weapon's aimed anywhere but downrange.

It's not a passive carry position. It's an active threat to anyone downrange of you.

[Aurrora]

If you're carrying your weapon in a low ready and you're not assuming you're going to need to shoot someone in the next half-second or so, you're an incompetent buffoon who has no clue what the fuck they're doing with a weapon.

You'd be kicked out of any decent firing range for arsing around like that, if the weapon's aimed anywhere but downrange.

It's not a passive carry position. It's an active threat to anyone downrange of you.

Someone behind him had just discharged a handgun, it's completely reasonable to have your weapon in low ready after that. It's also completely reasonable to shoot someone that was part of that mob that's attempting to disarm you and arm himself, especially after he had already made a hostile movement towards that caused him to run away in the first place.

We're not talking about at a shooting range, we're talking about in practical use. If you're at a shooting range no one is going to be downrange of you so the low ready position can be closer to horizontal, again the point of low ready is so that you don't injure people with an accidental discharge, with more people around you a low ready position means pointed further towards the ground.

Low ready example.
Another low ready example.

[Endus]

Someone behind him had just discharged a handgun, it's completely reasonable to have your weapon in low ready after that.

And it's completely reasonable for anyone he's aiming at thereby to take that as a threat, and respond accordingly.

This isn't happening in a vacuum, and Rittenhouse isn't the only person there.

It's also completely reasonable to shoot someone that was part of that mob that's attempting to disarm you and arm himself.

No, that would be straight-up murder. There is absolutely no grounds for that under Wisconsin law. You're completely out to lunch on that point.

Not sure why you're defending murder, but that's what you're doing, here. He was not shooting in self defense.

I'll also note you're shifting goalposts here in an apparent attempt to Gish Gallop rather than admit you can't defend the earlier points.

[Aurrora]

And it's completely reasonable for anyone he's aiming at thereby to take that as a threat, and respond accordingly.

This isn't happening in a vacuum, and Rittenhouse isn't the only person there.

Once again, low ready, he wasn't aiming at anyone.

No, that would be straight-up murder. There is absolutely no grounds for that under Wisconsin law. You're completely out to lunch on that point.

You're an absolute liar.

Not sure why you're defending murder, but that's what you're doing, here. He was not shooting in self defense.

I'm not sure why you're defending a pedophile that was attacking a 17 year old that had already made his hostile intentions known minutes earlier, that's what you're doing here.

I'll also note you're shifting goalposts here in an apparent attempt to Gish Gallop rather than admit you can't defend the earlier points.

What goalposts? Every point has been defended. If the conversation has changed it's only because you have abandoned trying to argue points that were indefensible.

[Endus]

Once again, low ready, he wasn't aiming at anyone.

I didn't say he was aiming at anyone.

A low ready position is an active threat. You try to adopt that stance with a weapon towards police officers, and they will shoot you.

You're an absolute liar.

I've quoted the law on this multiple times. I'm confident it backs me up. Plus, the prosecutors certainly seem to agree, since they've charged Rittenhouse accordingly.

Feel free to show your work, in detail, if you want to contest that point. Empty accusations like this are utterly meaningless; you're just making noise.

I'm not sure why you're defending a pedophile that was attacking a 17 year old that had already made his hostile intentions known minutes earlier, that's what you're doing here.

I'm not defending Rosenbaum. He was an asshole with a record, and was probably at least a little bit racist based on earlier footage.

None of that justifies shooting him four times. That's the problem with your stance. You choose to defend the murderer, because . . . why, exactly?

Bringing up Rosenbaum's record and dickhead conduct is just victim-blaming. Empty noise to try and justify murdering him, because he was an "undesirable". Why not just start using (((echoes))) and shit; you're not subtle.

[Aurrora]

I didn't say he was aiming at anyone.

A low ready position is an active threat. You try to adopt that stance with a weapon towards police officers, and they will shoot you.

So is grabbing at their firearm, so once again I invite you to please go find the nearest mountie and grab their service weapon.
Kyle had justification to be in a low ready position he was responding to someone discharging a firearm behind him, Rosenbaum did not have justification to assault Kyle and take his weapon. If you think Rosenbaum was trying to stop a shooting from happening, why didn't he tackle the person next to him that had just fired a gun?

I've quoted the law on this multiple times. I'm confident it backs me up. Plus, the prosecutors certainly seem to agree, since they've charged Rittenhouse accordingly.

Feel free to show your work, in detail, if you want to contest that point. Empty accusations like this are utterly meaningless; you're just making noise.

And lawyers all over Youtube have quoted the law and said differently, I'll take the word of lawyers and not some random forum poster.

I'm not defending Rosenbaum. He was an asshole with a record, and was probably at least a little bit racist based on earlier footage.

None of that justifies shooting him four times. That's the problem with your stance. You choose to defend the murderer, because . . . why, exactly?

Bringing up Rosenbaum's record and dickhead conduct is just victim-blaming. Empty noise to try and justify murdering him, because he was an "undesirable". Why not just start using (((echoes))) and shit; you're not subtle.

I'm not defending a murderer, I'm defending someone that was justified in shooting an assailant in self defense. Rosenbaum had made his hostile intentions known. You can see him here attacking Kyle before he starts running. He's been recorded minutes earlier making his intentions known that he wanted to "Jack them and take they*sic* guns". He was noted by reporters earlier as acting in a far more aggressive manner than the rest of the crowd. You should be asking yourself why someone with a felony record was intent on arming himself illegally.

[postman1782]

Handling it poorly is not the same as aiming it at people, and is largely subjective. Rosenbaum had already made an aggressive move at Kyle before he started running and could have contributed to whatever "poor handling" Kyle exhibited. Pointing the weapon at someone is a very different matter and unless he said that explicitly I don't see any reason why you should assume that happened.

- - - Updated - - -



Low ready means your weapon is shouldered but pointed downwards not towards any target, that is the entire point of low ready, so that no one is in danger of serious injury in the case of an accidental discharge.

Wrong. There is another victim/witness where Rittenhouse pointed his gun at a black guy going to his car. I didn't assume it happened. We have 1st hand witness accounts.

[Endus]

So is grabbing at their firearm, so once again I invite you to please go find the nearest mountie and grab their service weapon.
Kyle had justification to be in a low ready position he was responding to someone discharging a firearm behind him, Rosenbaum did not have justification to assault Kyle and take his weapon. If you think Rosenbaum was trying to stop a shooting from happening, why didn't he tackle the person next to him that had just fired a gun?

Still victim blaming.

Nothing about Rosenbaum's actions could justify a shooting. You have not made any argument to that effect, and your position is entirely contradicted by Wisconsin law.

And lawyers all over Youtube have quoted the law and said differently, I'll take the word of lawyers and not some random forum poster.

You'll take the word of cherry-picked lawyers with a clear bias who don't know the full details, and not the prosecutors who filed the charges and do.

I also have not, at any point, asked you to take me at my word. I've made arguments on the facts and the law. Feel free to deal with those at any time.

I'm not defending a murderer, I'm defending someone that was justified in shooting an assailant in self defense. Rosenbaum had made his hostile intentions known. You can see him here attacking Kyle before he starts running. He's been recorded minutes earlier making his intentions known that he wanted to "Jack them and take they*sic* guns". He was noted by reporters earlier as acting in a far more aggressive manner than the rest of the crowd. You should be asking yourself why someone with a felony record was intent on arming himself illegally.

No. I'll just keep pointing out that you're defending a murderer and victim-blaming. And that you can't actually back up your points.

The law does not support your position.

Even your chosen video adds nothing new and nothing that defense Rittenhouse's actions.

You're also ignoring multiple witnesses who describe Rittenhouse as behaving dangerously and provoking this attempt to disarm him.

You're trying to cherry-pick evidence to support your predetermined conclusion, rather than assessing the entire body of evidence and using that to arrive at the conclusion those facts lead to.

[Aurrora]

Wrong. There is another victim/witness where Rittenhouse pointed his gun at a black guy going to his car. I didn't assume it happened. We have 1st hand witness accounts.

Source it then.