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

[Draco-Onis]

The whole LAW & ORDER thing is hilarious, given the Conservatives don't give a hoot about either.

That aside, I haven't gone through Biden's criminal justice reform content. Anything I can read about how he's planning to address the protests?

What's his Day 1 in the White House plan if things still continue till Jan 2021? I'd love for him to pitch this during the debates.

I think the fact that the guy screaming LAW & ORDER has 7 convicted felons as his former and current friends pretty much says it all.

[Captain N]

The whole LAW & ORDER thing is hilarious, given the Conservatives don't give a hoot about either.

That aside, I haven't gone through Biden's criminal justice reform content. Anything I can read about how he's planning to address the protests?

What's his Day 1 in the White House plan if things still continue till Jan 2021? I'd love for him to pitch this during the debates.

This is just a quick grab from Biden's website -- Seems like he's in for the SAFE Justice Act and working on rehabilitation instead of punishment.

https://joebiden.com/justice/#

[Draco-Onis]

Except you know when the shoe is on the other foot they're going to display flagrant hypocrisy. It's OK for our side to do it but if your side does it.....*clutches pearls* we need LAW AND ORDER!!

Conservatives : It's outrageous those looters are breaking the law going around and destroying property LAW AND ORDER.

Also conservatives: It's perfectly fine for a 17 year old to be running around with an AR-15 playing cops and killing people.

[Captain N]

Conservatives : It's outrageous those looters are breaking the law going around and destroying property LAW AND ORDER.

Also conservatives: It's perfectly fine for a 17 year old to be running around with an AR-15 playing cops and killing people.

Also Also Conservatives: Police were right to shoot Tamir Rice -- he was waving his (toy) gun around and pointing it at people. Kyle Rittenhouse was doing the same but Self-Defense!

[Edge-]

https://www.newsweek.com/proud-boys-...orters-1530187

I see the "good guy" Proud Boys, who are either out of city or out of state, are just assaulting BLM protesters in Salem Oregon over the weekend. That arrest/detention of Proud Boys for assaulting peaceful protesters seems way more friendly and peaceful than the arrests of BLM protesters has been.

Weird.

[DingDongKing]

This is just a quick grab from Biden's website -- Seems like he's in for the SAFE Justice Act and working on rehabilitation instead of punishment.

https://joebiden.com/justice/#

Yup, I've read that. I suppose here's my question if Joe Biden was in front of me. The SAFE act implements reforms that will address the protests.

'What policies will address the peaceful protests, and separately, bring a stop to the rioting and looting?'

[Captain N]

Yup, I've read that. I suppose here's my question if Joe Biden was in front of me. The SAFE act implements reforms that will address the protests.

'What is your plan in regards to addressing the peaceful protests and separately, bringing a stop to the rioting and looting?'

I suppose we'll have to wait and see about that. I mean we know that a majority of the BLM protests have been peaceful (93% according to the Guardian) but there's always going to be opportunists and in a few cases right-wing extremists committing the looting and trying to have it pinned on the protesters. The problem I see is that even if Biden does answer your question correctly that a large chunk of people aren't going to listen anyways. I mean Biden truthfully said that Trump was going to cut local law enforcement aid by half a billion dollars....folks are still screeching "Fake News" and "Deep State Lies".

[DingDongKing]

I suppose we'll have to wait and see about that. I mean we know that a majority of the BLM protests have been peaceful (93% according to the Guardian) but there's always going to be opportunists and in a few cases right-wing extremists committing the looting and trying to have it pinned on the protesters. The problem I see is that even if Biden does answer your question correctly that a large chunk of people aren't going to listen anyways. I mean Biden truthfully said that Trump was going to cut local law enforcement aid by half a billion dollars....folks are still screeching "Fake News" and "Deep State Lies".

Agreed. The people that don’t want to listen won’t listen. But I think it is important for him to address this. There’s no question that the protests and rioting/looting will continue under Trump. But for the people who are scared of the rioting/looting element, what sanctuary and comfort is Biden intending to provide? Normality needs to resume.

[Daelak]

In your opinion. In the opinion of others, including other lawyers who have chimed in stating the opposite. It's already been stated by his lawyers he will plead self-defense. Rosenbaum started the engagement, Rittenhouse tried to flee. Rosenbaum pursued. So it's established that Rittenhouse tried to avoid it, he wasn't the aggressor to Rosenbaum, and a threat was clearly imminent. Your only possible argument against self-defense (as you have stated several times) is that the proportionality of the response was not justified.

The proportionality depends on both the actual threat as well as the perceived threat, and the surrounding circumstances. It's established that:
- Rosenbaum was in sustained pursuit of Rittenhouse (They are already in full sprint when they enter the camera)
- Rosenbaum threw the only object in his possession at Rittenhouse during that pursuit, establishing that Rosenbaum was willing to use an object to assault.
- It's on camera there are shouts of "beat him up",
- Rosenbaum reached for his gun.

As I said, I don't think it will be hard to find one person in a jury to think that if they were being chased by a masked assailant, who already threw an object at them, had people yelling "beat him up", and had gunfire ring out in the same parking lot believe that if they were to lose possession of their gun that serious bodily harm could result.

It's going to be on the prosecution to prove beyond reasonable doubt that this wasn't a possibility.

- - - Updated - - -



You really don't seem to understand how law works. Even if he's convicted of illegally carrying a firearm, that does not remove his right to self defense, and it does not immediately make him the aggressor. You need to actually prove he was the aggressor. As linked previously, this was discussed here.

How would Rosenbaum, or any of the other protestors present know if anyone there carrying a gun is a) licensed to carry or b) their age.



He specifically came to guard against things being looted and help out where he can. Yes, he's a wanna be cop and wants to play guardian. That's not illegal. He's no more guilty just for being there than the protesters themselves.



You do realize this is actually better evidence for his defense, than against? It shows that he was involved in a non-lethal situation, and didn't respond with lethal force.

No way this is going to trial. His attorney will take the plea deal that will likely include decades behind bars as well as probation/prison for his mother as well.

[Krastyn]

You are ignoring what I keep asking over and over again.

I'll try explaining this again line by line. Please take the time to read and understand.

Why was he in another state

Completely irrelevant. There is nothing illegal about crossing state lines. He did not cross state lines with the weapon. Even the declaration that he is going to put himself "in harm's way" STILL does not make anything about this action illegal. You would need a written / video statement from him stating something along the lines of "We're going there to shoot people". Without the expressed statement of intent to commit a violet crime, the act of crossing the border is not illegal.

with an AR-15

And as reported by multiple sources, it isn't even clear if this is illegal. Even if it is, as stated multiple times, this does not immediately make him an aggressor, nor does it remove his right to self defense.

playing cop?

What arrests did he make?

who asked him to be there?

Irrelevant. He's a citizen who has every right to be there as much as any of the protesters. He doesn't need to be asked.

To your point however, there was a request by a local car dealership who wanted help to protect his businesses. It's in the statement by his lawyer.

why did he insert himself in this situation?

He had a right to be there, as much as any protester.

remove him and two people are not dead.

Remove Rosenbaum and two people are not dead. You still need to prove that he was the aggressor in the altercation. Still waiting for you to do that. His mere presence holding a gun does not make that the case. Chasing someone who is running away does not lead credence to your position.

He is a vigilante from another state, you are literally advocating for anarchy.

Strawman. I'm fine with people coming from out of state to come and both protest or counter protest. Are you advocating that people should not be allowed to?

To use your own logic, who authorized Rosenbaum, Huber, or Grosskreutz to be armed vigilantes?

again I will ask WHO GAVE HIM THAT RIGHT AND AUTHORITY FROM ANOTHER STATE AND WE DON'T SANCTION VIGILANTISM IN THE US AND YES IT IS ILLEGAL IF IT WASN'T WHAT'S TO STOP ANYONE FROM TAKING A GUN PLAYING COP CROSS THE COUNTRY?.

cross the country? He travelled 20 miles, to a city that he working in that day.

Edit: fixed formatting

[DingDongKing]

And yet another person to add to the ignore list.

[Krastyn]

He flat out says he's there to put himself in harm's way. How can you claim self defense if you are purposely putting yourself in that situation?

There is nothing illegal about putting yourself in harms way. Futhermore, if the source of the harm is illegal, then the onus is on those causing the harm, not the person receiving it. You need to show he was the aggressor. His mere presence does not establish that. The fact that he's running away in both encounters implies the opposite, in fact.

[Shadowferal]

Well, it seems to me thst all the anti-2nd amendment people have finally given up the argument that guns are threats.

[Elegiac]

Agreed. The people that don’t want to listen won’t listen. But I think it is important for him to address this. There’s no question that the protests and rioting/looting will continue under Trump. But for the people who are scared of the rioting/looting element, what sanctuary and comfort is Biden intending to provide? Normally needs to resume.

"Normality" is the state of affairs that is being protested currently, hun. Police brutality and systemic racism didn't start under Trump, which is what the people complaining about the riots don't seem to fucking get.

Your discomfort at having to watch a Target burn down on the television is kinda worthless by comparison to the discomfort of people who actually have to live and breathe oppression.

[Krastyn]

No way this is going to trial. His attorney will take the plea deal that will likely include decades behind bars as well as probation/prison for his mother as well.

It's hard to say. If the plea was for a decade? Maybe. If the plea deal is for 20+ years? Not a chance. There's reasonable grounds in the charging document to claim self defense. The prosecution will have to show beyond a reasonable doubt that there wasn't. The bigger risk is that if it goes to trial, and he gets off. It will further justify to people that doing what he did is a good idea.

Rittenhouse is an idiot who shouldn't have been there. The current weapons & self-defense laws seem to allow what happened be ok in the eyes of the law. There would need to be significantly more evidence that what has been released to get a conviction.

[Draco-Onis]

Completely irrelevant. There is nothing illegal about crossing state lines. He did not cross state lines with the weapon. Even the declaration that he is going to put himself "in harm's way" STILL does not make anything about this action illegal. You would need a written / video statement from him stating something along the lines of "We're going there to shoot people". Without the expressed statement of intent to commit a violet crime, the act of crossing the border is not illegal.
And as reported by multiple sources, it isn't even clear if this is illegal. Even if it is, as stated multiple times, this does not immediately make him an aggressor, nor does it remove his right to self defense.

Then please provide evidence he had a license for the gun for hunting at 17 in Wisconsin, also provide evidence that he did not cross state line with the weapon. The declaration he made goes towards intent he purposely put himself in that situation he is the aggressor.

What arrests did he make?

He isn't private security so what right does he have to protect anything from another state?

Irrelevant. He's a citizen who has every right to be there as much as any of the protesters. He doesn't need to be asked.

Since he was there with a weapon to play cop from another state he does, he wasn't there to protest peacefully.

Remove Rosenbaum and two people are not dead.

Provide video of Rosenbaum saying he came over to play cop.

Strawman. I'm fine with people coming from out of state to come and both protest or counter protest. Are you advocating that people should not be allowed to?

To use your own logic, who authorized Rosenbaum, Huber, or Grosskreutz to be armed vigilantes?



cross the country? He travelled 20 miles, to a city that he working in that day.

Edit: fixed formatting

It doesn't matter if he traveled 1 mile, it's not his state, he isn't a cop, he isn't neighborhood watch, he doesn't live in the state so he has no laws to use to justify him putting himself in harm's way. He wasn't there to peacefully protest he was there to take the law into his own hands.

[Elegiac]

It's hard to say. If the plea was for a decade? Maybe. If the plea deal is for 20+ years? Not a chance. There's reasonable grounds in the charging document to claim self defense. The prosecution will have to show beyond a reasonable doubt that there wasn't.

Literally not how self-defense works in any state, dude.

[Endus]

In your opinion. In the opinion of others, including other lawyers who have chimed in stating the opposite. It's already been stated by his lawyers he will plead self-defense. Rosenbaum started the engagement, Rittenhouse tried to flee. Rosenbaum pursued. So it's established that Rittenhouse tried to avoid it, he wasn't the aggressor to Rosenbaum, and a threat was clearly imminent. Your only possible argument against self-defense (as you have stated several times) is that the proportionality of the response was not justified.

Err, no.

My arguments against a possible self defense claim are, to repeat;
1> Proportionality of response was not respected, and lethal force in response could not be deemed justified here.
2> Rittenhouse was mishandling his weapon and putting bystanders at risk, justifying disarming him.
3> Fleeing the scene and the city in the aftermath, rather than calling the police and turning yourself in, demonstrates mens rea.
4> Arming yourself and putting yourself into a situation that may lead to violence is a demonstration of premeditation and intent, which defeats any possibility of self defense as a claim.

And who knows; there's probably more.

The proportionality depends on both the actual threat as well as the perceived threat, and the surrounding circumstances. It's established that:
- Rosenbaum was in sustained pursuit of Rittenhouse (They are already in full sprint when they enter the camera)
- Rosenbaum threw the only object in his possession at Rittenhouse during that pursuit, establishing that Rosenbaum was willing to use an object to assault.
- It's on camera there are shouts of "beat him up",
- Rosenbaum reached for his gun.

As I said, I don't think it will be hard to find one person in a jury to think that if they were being chased by a masked assailant, who already threw an object at them, had people yelling "beat him up", and had gunfire ring out in the same parking lot believe that if they were to lose possession of their gun that serious bodily harm could result.

Being "beat up" is not "great bodily harm".

That phrase means something. It doesn't mean "I got beaten up pretty bad and needed a few stitches".

It's going to be on the prosecution to prove beyond reasonable doubt that this wasn't a possibility.

That is not how affirmative defenses work.

The prosecution needs to establish beyond a reasonable doubt that Rittenhouse committed a multiple homicide. Are you contesting that? No? Good.

Then, the defense team needs to establish a legal justification for that homicide; this is where a defense team would bring up insanity, or equipment failure through no fault of the defendant, or in Rittenhouse's case, self defense. The defense team needs to prove this claim, with provision of evidence, and if the prosecution can cast doubt on it, then that argument will fail. They don't need to prove it "beyond a reasonable doubt". "Preponderance of the evidence" is the standard at this point; it has to be more likely it was justifiable self defense than not. If you can cast serious doubt on the claim, then even if it was possibly self defense, a jury will be obliged to discard that claim.

- - - Updated - - -

There is nothing illegal about putting yourself in harms way.

There's nothing illegal about sitting near a playground, either.

If you do that every day for a month and end up stealing a child one day, though, it demonstrates premeditation and intent.

Futhermore, if the source of the harm is illegal, then the onus is on those causing the harm, not the person receiving it. You need to show he was the aggressor. His mere presence does not establish that. The fact that he's running away in both encounters implies the opposite, in fact.

This is just flatly wrong. There's no need to establish who was the aggressor in this. Rosenbaum is dead, so he couldn't face charges for any potential assault he was committing.

All that matters is whether Rittenhouse escalated the level of violence to lethal force unlawfully. Which he did. Even if Rosenbaum picked a fight with him for no reason, that still gets Rittenhouse convicted for murder.

[BeepBoo]

1> Proportionality of response was not respected, and lethal force in response could not be deemed justified here.

What exactly is proportional use of force, and why must it be respected? That's not how self defense works. It's not "You can only use force up to what the person assailing you does." In most states I know of, deadly force is allowed as a retaliation to assault if the state is a pro-gun kinda state and the defendant feels their life is threatened.

Rittenhouse was mishandling his weapon and putting bystanders at risk, justifying disarming him.

How was he mishandling it, exactly?

Fleeing the scene and the city in the aftermath, rather than calling the police and turning yourself in, demonstrates mens rea.

This and the possession of the firearm illegally are what I think he really deserves to get nailed on.

Arming yourself and putting yourself into a situation that may lead to violence is a demonstration of premeditation and intent, which defeats any possibility of self defense as a claim.

Lol, fuck that noise. You're not required to avoid any part of this country. I can walk through the ghetto with literal money sacks and I'm still not at fault for any violence that happens to me. Being prepared to use the force you're allowed to, even liking using it, is different from being pre-meditated.

Being "beat up" is not "great bodily harm".

You can't prove he would have just gotten some bruises. You'll never know, and it's not right to expect someone to take that kind of licking and have to hope it's the case, either. I'm for people having to fear death if they want to go aggro. It keeps them in-line.

There's nothing illegal about sitting near a playground, either.

If you do that every day for a month and end up stealing a child one day, though, it demonstrates premeditation and intent.

Nice false equivalency. Besides that, I'm all for "make my day" laws where your line of reasoning goes out the window. Throw the first punch, risk your life. Seems fine to me. Don't be a dick and think physicality is the answer to anything. It isn't. Use more civilized forms of discourse resolution.

All that matters is whether Rittenhouse escalated the level of violence to lethal force unlawfully. Which he did.

404, proof not found.

Even if Rosenbaum picked a fight with him for no reason, that still gets Rittenhouse convicted for murder.

We'll just have to wait on the jury for this one, eh?

[Krastyn]

Then please provide evidence he had a license for the gun for hunting at 17 in Wisconsin

Already previously linked in the thread. Go dig it up yourself. Furthermore, at worst this only makes him guilty of illegal possession, but does not invalidate self defense.

, also provide evidence that he did not cross state line with the weapon.

Already established through multiple sources this is not the case. If you're still arguing this, you're wasting everyone's time.

The declaration he made goes towards intent he purposely put himself in that situation he is the aggressor.

I don't think you understand what the word aggressor means.

He isn't private security so what right does he have to protect anything from another state?

The same right that the protesters have to be there.

Since he was there with a weapon to play cop from another state he does, he wasn't there to protest peacefully.

The law disagrees with you here.

Provide video of Rosenbaum saying he came over to play cop.

Don't need to. If Rosenbaum hadn't engaged and pursued Rittenhouse this wouldn't have happened.

It doesn't matter if he traveled 1 mile, it's not his state, he isn't a cop, he isn't neighborhood watch, he doesn't live in the state so he has no laws to use to justify him putting himself in harm's way. He wasn't there to peacefully protest he was there to take the law into his own hands.

What law did he take into his own hands? Did Rosenbaum take the law into his own hands chasing down Rittenhouse?