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

[Felya]

Well you got the self victimization part down pat.

I wasn’t being sarcastic.... lol

[Orange Joe]

I wasn’t being sarcastic.... lol

I know. For a person that English isn't their first language they are sure quick to assume your meaning without asking.

[Deus Mortis]

Since people are too lazy here is Rittenhouse mid fall. Sorry if the image is shit quality I had to print screen, copy paste it into paint and then save it and upload it to imgur. He 100% tripped.

[Kathandira]

Since people are too lazy here is Rittenhouse mid fall. Sorry if the image is shit quality I had to print screen, copy paste it into paint and then save it and upload it to imgur. He 100% tripped.

Indeed, he tripped like a scared little girl being chased by the BBEG in a horror movie. Cept in this situation, he is the bad guy.

[Belize]

Since people are too lazy here is Rittenhouse mid fall. Sorry if the image is shit quality I had to print screen, copy paste it into paint and then save it and upload it to imgur. He 100% tripped.
[IMG]https://i.imgur.com/UIL2oWv.png?3[MG]

OR...
Antifa has invented invisibility cloaks!

I'm sure the "self-defense" goalpost will be moved to something like "he was running because he feared for his life" or some other shit like that.

[Noxx79]

Here’s a good start for Denver:
https://www.denverpost.com/2020/09/0...health-police/

BuT tHe PrOtEsTs ArEn’T DoInG aNyThIng

[KaPe]

OR...
Antifa has invented invisibility cloaks!

I'm sure the "self-defense" goalpost will be moved to something like "he was running because he feared for his life" or some other shit like that.

It was obviously a ki blast. You can clearly hear some people charging them up off-screen.

Here’s a good start for Denver:
https://www.denverpost.com/2020/09/0...health-police/

BuT tHe PrOtEsTs ArEn’T DoInG aNyThIng

This seems like something that should have been in place since... ever? Imagine, sending actual professionals to help deal with potential mental issues, instead of heavily armed police officers. And yet it's being treated like some kind of amazing discovery.

I certainly hope this isn't just a case of "well, she was *white*, so..."

[postman1782]

No, I didn't, I've already explained that here and you're conveniently still ignoring it, so at this point I can only assume you're trolling.
Anyhow, what matters is that somehow he ended up on the ground. How is irrelevant. Who's Connal?

He tripped over his own damn feet. There is plenty of videos that show this.

[Coolthulhu]

He tripped over his own damn feet. There is plenty of videos that show this.

Ok. It's not like I've ever ruled that out,

He was chased, he fell, some guy was on him, and this happened after a "get him" was yelled, along with other things I'm unable to hear/discern but were likely on the same wavelength. So by lex parsimoniae he panicked when he fell and opened fire because of that.

Did it not look like he was tackled - and even if he wasn't and just tripped

I find it irrelevant whether he fell because he was tackled or because he tripped.

and it's not like it matters. Your points being?

[kail]

Here’s a good start for Denver:
https://www.denverpost.com/2020/09/0...health-police/

BuT tHe PrOtEsTs ArEn’T DoInG aNyThIng

Saw that article myself. This is the shift our police and health department should partake. Not every incident needs a police officer, especially if the situation requires de-escalation.

[Trifle]

Saw that article myself. This is the shift our police and health department should partake. Not every incident needs a police officer, especially if the situation requires de-escalation.

Speaking of which,
A 13-year-old boy with autism was shot by police after his mother called for help managing a 'mental breakdown'

wtf?!

[DingDongKing]

Speaking of which,
A 13-year-old boy with autism was shot by police after his mother called for help managing a 'mental breakdown'

wtf?!

Saw this. Mental health support in the US is a shitshow.

[Bodakane]

No, I didn't, I've already explained that here and you're conveniently still ignoring it, so at this point I can only assume you're trolling.
Anyhow, what matters is that somehow he ended up on the ground. How is irrelevant. Who's Connal?

No, you explained that it was a mistake to say he was tripped by someone, then went on to soften that stance by leaving open a backdoor by saying it was a possibility. Its not a possibility, the tape confirms this. But instead of admitting it is not a possibility you keep playing lawyer ball. You're doing it because you really want to say he was just defending himself and you know that is an easier sell if he was touched....but he wasn't.

Furthermore, him tripping on his own came AFTER he already shot the first victim. The people in pursuit of him at that point were trying to stop him because they just saw him shoot someone that never touched him or his gun and wasn't armed.

The reason i asked if you were tight with Connal is because he did the same tactic, of saying X, then sneaking in stuff for him to say maybe not X later.

[Coolthulhu]

No, you explained that it was a mistake to say he was tripped by someone, then went on to soften that stance by leaving open a backdoor by saying it was a possibility.

I explained it was a mistake to say he was tripped by someone because I had already said that he was either tackled or fell/tripped by himself. The chronological order of the posts I keep quoting proves it, along with your bad faith. Furthermore, I'm not here to "sell" anything, I've already made it abundantly clear that he behaved like an unhinged individual. I literally said as much. Of course that doesn't imply that he didn't fire because he was getting pursued by an angry mob, fell and found himself with an angry guy towering over him - in fact panicking is the most likely explanation, you'd see that if you weren't blinded by ideology; had he wanted to shoot someone for the sake of it he would've done so like shooters do, not with his ass on the ground. Or perhaps the whole concept of lex parsimoniae eludes you and you think he premeditated everything, perhaps going as far as to pretending to trip in order to have an excuse to open fire. You wouldn't be the first to come to such outlandish conclusions.

[Bodakane]

I explained it was a mistake to say he was tripped by someone because I had already said that he was either tackled or fell/tripped by himself. The chronological order of the posts I keep quoting proves it, along with your bad faith. Furthermore, I'm not here to "sell" anything, I've already made it abundantly clear that he behaved like an unhinged individual. I literally said as much. Of course that doesn't imply that he didn't fire because he was getting pursued by an angry mob, fell and found himself with an angry guy towering over him - in fact panicking is the most likely explanation, you'd see that if you weren't blinded by ideology; had he wanted to shoot someone for the sake of it he would've done so like shooters do, not with his ass on the ground. Or perhaps the whole concept of lex parsimoniae eludes you and you think he premeditated everything, perhaps going as far as to pretending to trip in order to have an excuse to open fire. You wouldn't be the first to come to such outlandish conclusions.

I mean you literally said, you were open to the possibility that someone tripped him. I didn't;t make that up. Pointing out you said it not bad faith.

You also have no idea what the timeline is, so I'm not sure why you're here even arguing anything.

[Coolthulhu]

I mean you literally said, you were open to the possibility that someone tripped him. I didn't;t make that up. Pointing out you said it not bad faith.

You also have no idea what the timeline is, so I'm not sure why you're here even arguing anything.

Yeah you did make that up, I quoted what I said about for times now, it didn’t help. It’s there for all to see, and it’s very clearly not what I said. I’m tired of quoting myself and it’s quite evident that you’re unwilling and/or unable to answer to my questions.

[Bodakane]

Yeah you did make that up, I quoted what I said about for times now, it didn’t help. It’s there for all to see, and it’s very clearly not what I said. I’m tired of quoting myself and it’s quite evident that you’re unwilling and/or unable to answer to my questions.

No I didn't.

I acknowledge the possibility of it, as I've already wrote two times.

I'm willing to entertain but not acknowledging since, as repeatedly said, I'm not informed nor invested enough and it's not my job anyway; judges, juries, defendants and prosecutors exist for that.

Here's your precious questions answered:

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.

1. No it wasn't;t a good idea to chase a man you just saw shoot someone to death. But often those people are considered heroes, but since the shooter was a white nationalist and the right in this country are often racists, they are siding with shooter.

2. I never said he was there to go on a shooting spree or anything like that. He was there to intimidate people and potentially start violence, because that has been the M.O. of every white nationalist group at every BLM protest. The FBI says it. The facts say it. The evidence says it.

3. Yes, someone yelled get him. It could have been anyone about anyone else there, but the fact of the matter is that he was an active shooter who just killed someone by that point.

4. No it did not look like he was tackled. Or fucking tripped by pursuers.

5. With him on the ground, if anyone was going to stop him, that was the time to rush him. Bad idea? Sure. Heroic to try? Any other case, like a school shooter, it would be for sure.

6. No one his going after him for political reasons, he is being defended for political reasons, the fact that you don't see that, plus you trying to plant loopholes about him being tripped, plus your lies about those loopholes, plus the fact that you came in here to argue something you admit you know precisely dick all about, makes you a bad faith poster.

[KaPe]

1. No it wasn't;t a good idea to chase a man you just saw shoot someone to death. But often those people are considered heroes, but since the shooter was a white nationalist and the right in this country are often racists, they are siding with shooter.

We know for a fact that at least one of those people was armed. They made a conscious choice to not use violence and not shoot this kid in the back - their reward was getting badly hurt in the arm. Also being called idiots who deserved to be shot, "because self defense ... by an active shooter fleeing the crime scene".

Makes me wonder what would the reaction be if they did use a gun to stop Rittenhouse at that point. Going by this logic, they would be praised as "good guy with a gun" ... but then again, it would mean they shot a white vigilante (underage, too!) during BLM protest, so that'd be a hard pill to swallow.

[Coolthulhu]

No I didn't.

Yes you did. I can keep quoting myself, you know.

He was chased, he fell, some guy was on him, and this happened after a "get him" was yelled, along with other things I'm unable to hear/discern but were likely on the same wavelength. So by lex parsimoniae he panicked when he fell and opened fire because of that.

Did it not look like he was tackled - and even if he wasn't and just tripped

I find it irrelevant whether he fell because he was tackled or because he tripped.

1. Glad you're at least able to admit it was a bad idea. As to me personally, I don't consider them heroes, I consider them suicidal. That doesn't mean I'm siding with the shooter, who shouldn't have been there in the first place.

2. He probably was there go intimidate people and potentially start violence, but that has to be proven. He claimed he was there to protect a property that was indeed set on fire the night before, as per McGinnis' admission. He shouldn't have been there for a variety of reasons, but there's that.

3. An active shooter in a school setting is not what happened here. In fact the term active shooter doesn't apply to this case for the reasons below.

4. It did look like he fell because of the pursuit, the rest is irrelevant.

5. But he wasn't a school shooter, it was two sides clashing with one another. So, not heroic, just suicidal.

6. Give me a break. They are going after him for political reasons, which would be justified if they only went after the fact that he wasn't supposed to be there in the first place. The fatal shootings happened when, and I quote the criminal complaint,

"McGinnis stated that the first round went into the ground and when the second shot went off, the defendant actually had the gun aimed at Rosenbaum,” the complaint read. “McGinnis stated he did not hear the two exchange any words. 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."

“A second person who was later identified as Anthony Huber approaches the defendant who is still on the ground, on his back. Huber has a skateboard in his right hand,” according to charging documents. “When Huber reaches the defendant it appears that he is reaching for the defendant’s gun with his left hand as the skateboard makes contact with the defendant’s left shoulder. Huber appears to be trying to pull the gun away from the defendant.”

“The defendant rolls towards his left side and as Huber appears to be trying to grab the gun [that] is pointed at Huber’s body. The defendant then fires one round which can be heard on the video. Huber staggers away, taking several steps, then collapses to the ground,” the complaint read.

You made a big fuss over the possibility that he might or not have been tripped or tackled when that's not the point, as I stated time and again. The relevant parts are the attempts to grab the gun and the aggression. Huber was shot after he swinged a skateboard at Rittenhouse's head and grabbed his gun.





There are no pictures that I could find for the first shooting but there's the testimony, and there's consistency between the shots being fired after getting approached/attacked and an attempt at grabbing his weapon.
That being said, admitting I knew little about it makes me the contrary of a bad faith poster. The reason you claim me to be a bad faith poster is as political as the motives for people pretending that Rittenhouse wasn't in danger when he fired, and if you claim that there's nothing dangerous about being on the ground, you head having been hit with a skateboard and someone having his hands on the barrel of your gun, well how would we call that... bad faith?

[jonnysensible]

3. An active shooter in a school setting is not what happened here. In fact the term active shooter doesn't apply to this case for the reasons below.

He had already shot someone and was by defenition an active shooter.