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

[draynay]

you just need one guy on that jury who's a law and order conservative and it's a mistrial

I would think someone interested in law and order would want to convict a murderer. No I think the real issue are those of you who pretend to be about "law and order" when what you really support is something completely different.

[postman1782]

The McGinnis testimony states that Rosenbaum "engaged" Rittenhouse first. Rittenhouse fled. Rosenbaum pursued. Per testimony, in the charging document. I don't think you know what the word aggressor means. Nowhere in the charging document does it state that Rittenhouse pointed a gun at anyone prior to Rosenbaum. Just the vague "handling the gun improperly". Which again, only matters if Rosenbaum himself saw it.

It's not cut and dry either way. It's a garbage situation that is going keep happening as long as gun laws are the way they are. He may be found guilty, he may walk. If I was to bet now though, based on what has been released, I'd wager on walk.

It also states that McGinnis said that Rittenhouse was handling his gun improperly. Which includes pointing your gun at people.

- - - Updated - - -

Agree completely. There may be other stuff out there, but the only things I found were that people were not happy with how Rittenhouse was holding his gun, and Rosembaum is on video confronting other people and saying, "Shoot me... n----!" Just idiocy all around.

Telling people to shoot you, is not grounds to actually shoot you.

[Daelak]

Doesn't first degree imply premeditation or something?

If I'm the prosecutor I'm looking for a deal here, you just need one guy on that jury who's a law and order conservative and it's a mistrial, which is career ending for any prosecutor with political aspirations.

The way to get ahead as a prosecutor is to publicize slam dunk cases. On this case you want to plead out to something with a bit of jail time and try your best to avoid getting too much crap for it. It might be a career ender either way - go to trial, you lose, plead out, you get killed for it in the public eye and lose anyway.

Yes, which means the prosecution has an abundance of evidence showing exactly that. Self defense arguments center around there being a dearth of evidence and witness testimony usually because there was only one other person surviving the ordeal; which is in itself an embarrassing loophole "self-defense" arguments are on its face. In this case, there will be an overwhelming amount of evidence showing he was in gross violation of the law. He will take a plea deal to stop from going to prison for life.

[Coolthulhu]

1. What does that have to do with anything i said? He wasn't tackled or touched and neither was his gun before he shot Rosenbaum and he wasn't tackled before he shot the other two people. Those are facts you didn't get right earlier so i corrected you.

2. Who said he was a there for a shooting spree? I didn't. He was however, there to put himself in harm's way.....by his own words.

I wasn't speaking from a hindsight point of view, I was trying to put myself in the mind of a bystander witnessing the events from the video's POV. What would you think if you were to see someone running with an AR, in that climate? That he was out doing groceries? Was he not being pursued, didn't someone yell "get him"? Did it not look like he was tackled - and even if he wasn't and just tripped, was it a good idea to approach someone who clearly felt in peril and had a rifle in his hands?
I don't care about analyzing what happened knowing what we assume to know now (a process will confirm whether those facts are actually facts) and I'm even less interested in defending someone who violated a curfew to run around with an AR. I couldn't care less if he gets life in prison. What irks me is people going after him for purely political reasons and pretending they already have the truth when not even the judges and jury do.

[Daelak]

Discovery can go both ways though. Most of what has been released so far has been framed from the perspective of the prosecutor. There are already videos of Rosenbaum trying to instigate with other people, as well as calling for people to "jack them and take their guns". As I said, more evidence needs to be seen.

There is no world where the defense for a person charged with two counts of 1st degree murder gets off from jail time that doesn't include life without parole.

[Krastyn]

It also states that McGinnis said that Rittenhouse was handling his gun improperly. Which includes pointing your gun at people.

Which can include that, but not directly stated. It could also just mean that he didn't always have it pointed down, or waved it around. Count 2 is likely because McGinnis was in the line of fire when Rittenhouse shot at Rosenbaum. McGinnis was interviewing Rittenhouse when he made the observation that he wasn't handling the weapon very well.

[Bodakane]

I wasn't speaking from a hindsight point of view, I was trying to put myself in the mind of a bystander witnessing the events from the video's POV. What would you think if you were to see someone running with an AR, in that climate? That he was out doing groceries? Was he not being pursued, didn't someone yell "get him"? Did it not look like he was tackled - and even if he wasn't and just tripped, was it a good idea to approach someone who clearly felt in peril and had a rifle in his hands?
I don't care about analyzing what happened knowing what we assume to know now (a process will confirm whether those facts are actually facts) and I'm even less interested in defending someone who violated a curfew to run around with an AR. I couldn't care less if he gets life in prison. What irks me is people going after him for purely political reasons and pretending they already have the truth when not even the judges and jury do.

I'll answer any question you have but first show me you understand what I said about you being wrong that he was tackled.

Because not only have you not acknowledged it you keep talking past it like it never happened.

[Krastyn]

There is no world where the defense for a person charged with two counts of 1st degree murder gets off from jail time that doesn't include life without parole.

There haven't been a lot of cases where after an altercation, an angry mob chased down a person, either. US courts also seem to have a tendency to throw the maximum charge at someone, and take whatever sticks. to me it all still flows from the initial Rosenbaum encounter. The second set of encounters is a lot easier to defend from a self defense standpoint.

[Coolthulhu]

I'll answer any question you have but first show me you understand what I said about you being wrong that he was tackled.

Because not only have you not acknowledged it you keep talking past it like it never happened.

No. All I'll do is copy-paste what I already wrote: Did it not look like he was tackled - and even if he wasn't and just tripped, was it a good idea to approach someone who clearly felt in peril and had a rifle in his hands?

[Edge-]

Luckily the kid seems to have lived, but what the fuck are they training police to become offensive or are they just not screening out the wrong people? Probably a combination of the two.

Been raging about this shit today as it's a perfect example for why police need to have reduced funding and that funding be redirected to social workers who are actually trained and equipped to respond to mental health emergencies like this. They can call in armed police if necessary, but it's abundantly clear that law enforcement do not have the training necessary to handle people having episodes like this without assaulting or killing them.

And yes on both counts. The screening is generally not great, lots of ex-bullies end up working in law enforcement, and there is very much a "warrior" mentality for law enforcement including a lot of paid or optional "warrior training" that functionally teaches them to treat everyone as a potentially deadly threat and be ready to physically and emotionally someone without hesitation. It's beyond fucked up.

[Bodakane]

No. All I'll do is copy-paste what I already wrote: Did it not look like he was tackled - and even if he wasn't and just tripped, was it a good idea to approach someone who clearly felt in peril and had a rifle in his hands?

He wasn't tackled at any point. That never happened.

1st shooting: he was never touched nor was his gun.
2nd & 3rd shootings: he tripped and fell. Nothing anywhere says he was tackled they all say he tripped.

Tell me you acknowledge this. Because if you don't I won't engage with you any longer because then you'd be a bad faith poster.

[Draco-Onis]

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

That is literally what you are defending vigilantism.

[Orange Joe]

Maybe they weren’t showing their hand in the charging documents and there is a ton. We’ll see.

But also when you talk about him being worried, you should consider the nervous politicians in Wisconsin who want to make damn sure that this doesn’t result in an acquittal on the big charges and a minor conviction.

I could see something with a big face number but relatively early parole possibility as a way for the politicians to signal toughness but Rittenhouse getting an effectively light sentence.

I don't think you understand how our legal system works.

[Edge-]

Maybe they weren’t showing their hand in the charging documents and there is a ton. We’ll see.

But also when you talk about him being worried, you should consider the nervous politicians in Wisconsin who want to make damn sure that this doesn’t result in an acquittal on the big charges and a minor conviction.

I could see something with a big face number but relatively early parole possibility as a way for the politicians to signal toughness but Rittenhouse getting an effectively light sentence.

Are they going to hold his trial in the Wisconsin state house or something? How would the politicians manage this in a trial by jury?

[Coolthulhu]

He wasn't tackled at any point. That never happened.

1st shooting: he was never touched nor was his gun.
2nd & 3rd shootings: he tripped and fell. Nothing anywhere says he was tackled they all say he tripped.

Tell me you acknowledge this. Because if you don't I won't engage with you any longer because then you'd be a bad faith poster.

I acknowledge the possibility of it, as I've already wrote two times. I also said two - now three - that I find it irrelevant whether he fell because he was tackled or because he tripped. I'm not a bad faith poster, that's wasted time even just for arguing's sake, and for transparency's sake, I'll have you know I'm not sufficiently engaged nor informed (by the way, you may be more informed because you're more engaged, but you don't have all the facts - those will be presented at a trial).
But back on the topic which matters so much to you for some reason and to which I've already answered: yes, he could've very well been tripped. That's the fourth time I write it now I believe, I'll stop counting from now on. So, are you going to answer my questions, or prove that it isn't me who's posting mala fide?

[Bodakane]

I acknowledge the possibility of it, as I've already wrote two times. I also said two - now three - that I find it irrelevant whether he fell because he was tackled or because he tripped. I'm not a bad faith poster, that's wasted time even just for arguing's sake, and for transparency's sake, I'll have you know I'm not sufficiently engaged nor informed (by the way, you may be more informed because you're more engaged, but you don't have all the facts - those will be presented at a trial).
But back on the topic which matters so much to you for some reason and to which I've already answered: yes, he could've very well been tripped. That's the fourth time I write it now I believe, I'll stop counting from now on. So, are you going to answer my questions, or prove that it isn't me who's posting mala fide?

No.

It didn't happen. There's video. There's eye witness testimony. No one, anywhere, says he was tackled or even possibly tackled. He wasn't tripped by anyone. He tripped on his own. He wasn't;t touched before the first shooting and neither was his gun.

You need to acknowledge this and quit trying to leave the door open for bullshit that didn't happen. I won't play that game.

[draynay]

I acknowledge the possibility of it, as I've already wrote two times. I also said two - now three - that I find it irrelevant whether he fell because he was tackled or because he tripped. I'm not a bad faith poster, that's wasted time even just for arguing's sake, and for transparency's sake, I'll have you know I'm not sufficiently engaged nor informed (by the way, you may be more informed because you're more engaged, but you don't have all the facts - those will be presented at a trial).
But back on the topic which matters so much to you for some reason and to which I've already answered: yes, he could've very well been tripped. That's the fourth time I write it now I believe, I'll stop counting from now on. So, are you going to answer my questions, or prove that it isn't me who's posting mala fide?

"I'm not a bad faith poster, I'm just sticking with my imagined scenario regardless of facts and expecting everyone to humor me!"

[Edge-]

yes, he could've very well been tripped.

What video was he tripped in? Because like, I've watched the multiple videos of the two different shootings. A disturbing number of times to verify facts or debunk garbage misinformation, in part because I guess I've been watching cops and violent right wing protesters murder and assault enough people that I'm getting depressingly numb to seeing it.

Just rewatched again, and he doesn't fall after shooting Rosenbaum. He does fall when running down the street, and there isn't a person within 5-10 feet of him. If he tripped, he tripped himself.

Now, let me know what video we can check out to back up this nonsense, because I sure as hell haven't seen it.

[DingDongKing]

"I'm not a bad faith poster, I'm just sticking with my imagined scenario regardless of facts and expecting everyone to humor me!"

Literally why I stopped responding after a why. Chap has made some decent posts previously, but right now is just digging a hole. :/

[JohnBrown1917]

I would think someone interested in law and order would want to convict a murderer. No I think the real issue are those of you who pretend to be about "law and order" when what you really support is something completely different.

The law and order in a fascist state.

- - - Updated - - -

Nope no issues here in the Great U.S. of A. All peachy with our criminal Justice system and the training of police to view everything as an imminent threat on their lives.


https://www.cbsnews.com/news/police-...lled-for-help/


Luckily the kid seems to have lived, but what the fuck are they training police to become offensive or are they just not screening out the wrong people? Probably a combination of the two.

If cops are this violent, best to not call them unless its to save your own life/that of your family/friends.