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

[Elegiac]

The same right that the protesters have to be there.

I'm sorry, aren't y'all in the habit of justifying police brutality by saying they are in violation of curfew?

So no, hun, by that metric he had absolutely no right to be there.

- - - Updated - - -

What law did he take into his own hands?

We've already covered this, don't play coy - we have a situation where right wing media is inflaming the idea of the protests as 'violent riots' which is encouraging Y'all Qaeda wannabees like Rittenhouse to take up arms to defend against...reforming the police state.

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

2A advocates really need to get their mythology in order so we can avoid situations like Schroedinger's Good Guy With A Gun.

[Draco-Onis]

Snip

Let's boil down your argument "there's nothing wrong with anyone picking up a gun going to another state and enforcing whatever they see fit"

Tell me again why do we need law enforcement since Rittenhouse and anyone with a gun is the law?

[Daelak]

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.

Not really, the murder charges alone can get him life without possibility of parole. They will offer to reduce the 1st degree murder charge in exchange for 25 years with a possibility of parole in 15.

[Elegiac]

Let's boil down your argument "there's nothing wrong with anyone picking up a gun going to another state and enforcing whatever they see fit"

Tell me again why do we need law enforcement since Rittenhouse and anyone with a gun is the law?

Watch, the next argument will be to the effect of "well what you say doesn't matter because no jury will convict Lil Y'all Qaeda" - because it always, always comes down to a thoughtless defense of the status quo without bothering to consider if juries and the judicial system itself are also broken.

And then it just further flies off into "well I simply can't believe that the entire system could be racist" territory as if colonialism wasn't a thing. Lul.

[Endus]

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.

Literally wrong, in Wisconsin. I'm not linking the laws for a fourth time to debunk this particular nugget of bullshit again. You're lying, and you clearly haven't bothered to read even this thread on the topic.

[Zan15]

He's a citizen who has every right to be there as much as any of the protesters.

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

whelp according to the law none of them had the right to be there because they were in violation of curfew.
they even used this to blame people for getting shot and killed "they were out after curfew"


So I guess that part of your defense is poof.

[Shadowferal]

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

And when that goes as expected, the left-wing radical will protest and insist on being pro-violence since the he didn't get the verdict he wanted. And at this point of ridiculousness he'll pick up a gun and insist he's no threat...anyone's guess at what happens then.
Fortunately the actual protesters will be sane enough to stay far away from that level of crazy.

[Bodakane]

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.

Yes there is, you aren't allowed to be a vigilante. It is one thing to happen upon a crime and acting to help, but it is another to illegally arm yourself and drive in from out of state and patrol as if you're the law.

Self defense laws are for the innocent bystander, not for the vigilante. I know you guys get all a twitter thinking about dirty harry wannabes blasting libtards until women are scared to vote and black people get back in their sheds, but people aren't allowed to run around as Captain Incel shooting people. That's the police's job....for now.

He wasn't acting in self defense no more than anyone who walks up to Mike Tyson and punches him in the face then screams self defense when he whoops your ass and you want to shoot him.

[BeepBoo]

Literally wrong, in Wisconsin. I'm not linking the laws for a fourth time to debunk this particular nugget of bullshit again. You're lying, and you clearly haven't bothered to read even this thread on the topic.

"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."

I've read plenty. So you're going to tell me that kid didn't fear for his life? That no one in that circumstance could fear for their life? Get out of here. Your lack of empathy (the TRUE definition on empathy) is showing.

You're relying solely on someone being able to prove this:

"c) A person who provokes an attack, whether by lawful or unlawful conduct, with intent to use such an attack as an excuse to cause death or great bodily harm to his or her assailant is not entitled to claim the privilege of self-defense."

Which I'll only accept a verdict from a court, not some armchair lawyer who thinks he has it pegged properly. Your reasoning is fucking stupid with huge leaps as to why he forfeited self defense. Short of something written on his wall like "time to go pwn some libs!" you can't prove what you think, ergo it's pointless.

[Krastyn]

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.

In your opinion, but we'll get to this later.

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

You need to establish that Rosenbaum knew this, was acting on this, and also acted on this for other people mishandling their weapon, or doing literally anything that puts others at risk. This is a massive stretch.

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

It does not. If he assumed he acted in self defense, he did not do anything wrong.

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.

This, is a massive pile of bullshit. If I carry some mace in my pocket and walk through the highest crime area of town, that does not demonstrate that I'm going to mace the first person who walks up to me.

And who knows; there's probably more.

And there could be more exonerating Rittenhouse. Or condemning him. That's just speculation though.

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".

Ah, the crux of the issue.

Per WI 939.48:

(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.

My emphaisis, in bold, but you know this. You don't need to suffer serious bodily injury to be able to escalate. You need to reasonably believe it will result if you don't.

This is pretty much the entirety of what the case will come down to, and I don't seem how you can 100% say he had no risk of serious bodily injury.

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.

The serious doubt you're casting is that a reasonable person would expect a masked person who is pursuing them, has already thrown an object at them, with other people in chase, gunshots going off, calls for them to be beaten, would assume that having their gun taken away from them has zero chance in resulting in serious injury. I doubt you'll find a whole jury who will believe that.

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.

If I stole the child, yes. If I'm simply being accused of stealing the child? No.

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.

There is entirely a need to establish who the aggressor is. It's one of the pillars of self-defense.

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.

In. Your. Opinion. Not a fact. You keep trying to pass off your opinions as absolute fact.

[Masark]

And yet another unjustifiable shooting by American police.

https://kutv.com/news/local/developi...salt-lake-city

https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/...oy-autism-utah

[Bodakane]

"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."

I've read plenty. So you're going to tell me that kid didn't fear for his life? That no one in that circumstance could fear for their life? Get out of here. Your lack of empathy (the TRUE definition on empathy) is showing.

You're relying solely on someone being able to prove this:

"c) A person who provokes an attack, whether by lawful or unlawful conduct, with intent to use such an attack as an excuse to cause death or great bodily harm to his or her assailant is not entitled to claim the privilege of self-defense."

Which I'll only accept a verdict from a court, not some armchair lawyer who thinks he has it pegged properly. Your reasoning is fucking stupid with huge leaps as to why he forfeited self defense. Short of something written on his wall like "time to go pwn some libs!" you can't prove what you think, ergo it's pointless.

Let me help you. This part:

"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."

Is the relevant part. Neither having a baggie thrown at you or someone with an outstretched arm in your direction constitutes a death sentence. Kyle wasn't touched and neither was his gun. This was murder because white nationalists emboldened by the dipshit POTUS thought it was a good idea to literally invade small town, illegally arm a 17 year old and inflict "justice".

[Krastyn]

I'm sorry, aren't y'all in the habit of justifying police brutality by saying they are in violation of curfew?

So no, hun, by that metric he had absolutely no right to be there.

I'm sorry, cupcake, but can you link ANYWHERE, where I have said that? No, so you can take your strawman and go back and play in the corner.

Protesters can be there, counter protesters can be there.

We've already covered this, don't play coy - we have a situation where right wing media is inflaming the idea of the protests as 'violent riots' which is encouraging Y'all Qaeda wannabees like Rittenhouse to take up arms to defend against...reforming the police state.

2A advocates really need to get their mythology in order so we can avoid situations like Schroedinger's Good Guy With A Gun.

I've already literally stated multiple times in this thread that Rittenhouse is an idiot, but the current laws allow the idiocy, which is why he will likely walk.

[DingDongKing]

"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.

I don't entirely agree with you, but I see your point. I don't live in a dreamland where all will be well asap. I'm looking at the political ramifications.

My issue is that: -

a) people need to confront the reality that whilst things get better with Biden, it's not like the situation will be fixed over night
b) voting for Trump will only make things far far worse
c) all that said, it's impossible to shake the perception of the entire nation into agreeing that burning stuff down signifies progress.
d) Black lives STILL matter. People burning stuff doesn't mean, 'ah well, I was gonna agree but then shit got burned down'.

I'm fundamentally opposed to looting for example, but I'm also not dumb enough to think it'll stop under Trump instead of Biden short of him going full Stalin. And it's not like that is a solution for the betterment of any society whatsoever. There'll be no society left.

[BeepBoo]

Let me help you. This part:

"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."

Is the relevant part. Neither having a baggie thrown at you or someone with an outstretched arm in your direction constitutes a death sentence.

Death sentence and deadly force are two different things, but I digress. Someone chasing you that fully intends to beat your ass and you have no idea if they'll stop short of actually killing you seems plenty justifiable to me. But, Like I've been saying, I'll wait for the jury to decide. Besides that, what about the dude that randomly popped off a round before that? Kyle probably had no way of telling exactly where that came from.

This was murder because white nationalists emboldened by the dipshit POTUS thought it was a good idea to literally invade small town, illegally arm a 17 year old and inflict "justice".

Whole lot of subjectivity and one-sided thinking there.

"Invade" lol right. Showing up to defend property against the very likely potential of an angry mob getting out of hand and destroying it (OH LOOK, THEY WERE RIGHT!) is now invading. Got it.

Illegally arm, sure, except he illegally armed himself.

"Inflict justice"? More like stop someone who is running after you with the intent to inflict an indiscernible amount of harm.

[Krastyn]

Let's boil down your argument "there's nothing wrong with anyone picking up a gun going to another state and enforcing whatever they see fit"

Tell me again why do we need law enforcement since Rittenhouse and anyone with a gun is the law?

No, that's not my argument, literally at all. So clearly you can't actually understand anything I've said.

- - - Updated - - -

Not really, the murder charges alone can get him life without possibility of parole. They will offer to reduce the 1st degree murder charge in exchange for 25 years with a possibility of parole in 15.

I think with the case details, even for a minimum of 15 years, he will opt to try his luck at court.

[Endus]

"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."

Hey, look, there's the requirement of proportionality you claimed didn't exist.

I've read plenty. So you're going to tell me that kid didn't fear for his life? That no one in that circumstance could fear for their life? Get out of here. Your lack of empathy (the TRUE definition on empathy) is showing.

Reasonably, because you've been chased by an unarmed man and literally nothing else?

No. It would not be reasonable to think you're at risk of dying and thus shoot him.

You're relying solely on someone being able to prove this:

"c) A person who provokes an attack, whether by lawful or unlawful conduct, with intent to use such an attack as an excuse to cause death or great bodily harm to his or her assailant is not entitled to claim the privilege of self-defense."

Which I'll only accept a verdict from a court, not some armchair lawyer who thinks he has it pegged properly. Your reasoning is fucking stupid with huge leaps as to why he forfeited self defense. Short of something written on his wall like "time to go pwn some libs!" you can't prove what you think, ergo it's pointless.

I'm really not. I pointed out that a lot of witness statements suggest that would also be true, but it's only one of a whole suite of reasons why a self-defense argument will fail.

This is the second time someone's made the "you only have one reason for thinking this" argument in the last couple pages and, hilariously, both of you picked different reasons.

Ah, the crux of the issue.

Per WI 939.48:

My emphaisis, in bold, but you know this. You don't need to suffer serious bodily injury to be able to escalate. You need to reasonably believe it will result if you don't.

This is pretty much the entirety of what the case will come down to, and I don't seem how you can 100% say he had no risk of serious bodily injury.

You've made multiple errors of reasoning, here.

I never claimed you need to suffer such injury, first.

I've made the point about reasonable belief multiple times, myself. Emphasis on that word, because it isn't as simple as declaring that you, the defendant, believed it to be true. That's motive. Establishing it as a reasonable belief is the step necessary to make it a defense.

I, and the prosecutors, do not in any way need to "prove" that Rittenhouse 100% had no risk of great bodily harm. They just need to cast doubt on the claim. Affirmative defenses aren't held to the same "beyond a reasonable doubt" standard, but they are held to a "preponderance of the evidence" standard. They don't need to prove 100% that he faced no such risk. They need to prove 51%. Or better, sure.

The serious doubt you're casting is that a reasonable person would expect a masked person who is pursuing them, and has already thrown and object at them, with other people in chase, gunshots going off, calls for them to be beaten, would assume that having their gun taken away from them has zero chance in resulting in serious injury. I doubt you'll find a whole jury who will believe that.

I'm going to remind you that the phrasing is "great bodily harm", and it has a very specific meaning under the law, and as such is concretely defined.

If you get beaten up so badly you need multiple stitches and are covered in bruises, split lip, black eyes, etc, that's not "great bodily harm". You could probably describe it as "serious injury", which is why I'm contesting your attempt to rephrase.

There is entirely a need to establish who the aggressor is. It's one of the pillars of self-defense.

You're confusing the point.

If Rosenbaum was the aggressor, then Rittenhouse needs to establish a self defense argument.
If Rittenhouse provoked it, then the self defense argument can't even be made.

That's why I said it's irrelevant; the only way we'll be considering self defense as an argument is if Rosenbaum was the aggressor. For the sake of discussion, I'm willing to concede that point to focus on the self defense question.

If you want to acknowledge that there's serious doubt on this point and thus even more reason to think a self-defense claim will stumble and collapse before it gets out the gate, by all means.

In. Your. Opinion. Not a fact. You keep trying to pass off your opinions as absolute fact.

It's a discussion forum. Until we get more hard evidence or a court decision, that's what we're operating with. This is so obvious in the context of the discussion that I have no idea why you're even bringing it up. This is like challenging a movie critic with "yeah, that's just your opinion!" Of course it is. That's what movie critics do; provide their opinions. It's literally the whole point.

[Bodakane]

Death sentence and deadly force are two different things, but I digress. Someone chasing you that fully intends to beat your ass and you have no idea if they'll stop short of actually killing you seems plenty justifiable to me. But, Like I've been saying, I'll wait for the jury to decide. Besides that, what about the dude that randomly popped off a round before that? Kyle probably had no way of telling exactly where that came from.

Whole lot of subjectivity and one-sided thinking there.

"Invade" lol right. Showing up to defend property against the very likely potential of an angry mob getting out of hand and destroying it (OH LOOK, THEY WERE RIGHT!) is now invading. Got it.

Illegally arm, sure, except he illegally armed himself.

"Inflict justice"? More like stop someone who is running after you with the intent to inflict an indiscernible amount of harm.

So much bullshit.

1. Getting your ass beat does not ok deadly force, so the mere chance of you getting your ass beat definitely does not ok deadly force..
2. Chasing someone does not ok deadly force.
3. A random gun shot in the distance by a party other than the person killed does not ok deadly force.
4. Having a baggie thrown at you does not ok deadly force.
5. Reaching in your direction does not ok deadly force..

Nothing that happened oks deadly force.
Even less so when you realize Kyle willingly put himself there to in his own fucking words,"put himself in harm's way".

And yes, they invaded. Again, vigilantes are not allowed. That shit is illegal.

[Krastyn]

whelp according to the law none of them had the right to be there because they were in violation of curfew.
they even used this to blame people for getting shot and killed "they were out after curfew"


So I guess that part of your defense is poof.

It goes poof for both sides. He shouldn't be there, they shouldn't be there. If no one is there, no one gets shot. However, Rittenhouse being there past curfew, even with a potential illegal weapon, STILL does not void his right to self defense per Wisconsin law.

[Felya]

It goes poof for both sides. He shouldn't be there, they shouldn't be there. If no one is there, no one gets shot. However, Rittenhouse being there past curfew, even with a potential illegal weapon, STILL does not void his right to self defense per Wisconsin law.

Was the teacher who lunged at the school shooter a couple of years ago, shot in self defense? It’s pretty obvious the teacher would use the gun on him, if he got it.