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

[unfilteredJW]

If someone comes with their face covered and tried to physically assault you and you stop them that's self defense, that's how that works my friend.

This is a lie and can be summarily dismisses.

[Belize]

If someone comes with their face covered and tried to physically assault you and you stop them that's self defense, that's how that works my friend.

Maybe in your fantasy world, but in real life laws still apply, and murdering someone because they threw a bag at you is still homicide.

[BlackDruid96]

Maybe in your fantasy world, but in real life laws still apply, and murdering someone because they threw a bag at you is still homicide.

If you're armed and someone comes at you to physically assault you, they could take your gun and kill you, so therefore it is self defense. I will wait to see what the courts say, I have a strong feeling Kyle will walk free.

[Belize]

I have a strong feeling Kyle will walk free.

Trumpkins and murderer sympathizers said the same thing about the Charlottesville guy, and he got life in prison.

Don't hold your breath.

[Zan15]

I don't see how you can compare someone who went to a school and brought a gun in a gun free zone to shoot children to what happened here.

He went to a zone that was a curfew zone, he had no right to be there with his gun anymore than someone entering a school. Not to mention the dozen other reason he had no right to be there or be there armed.

Ok do you want me to give you another dozen examples that were not gun free zones.

How about guy opens up in a church, that is not a gun free zone because other parishioners are armed as well as armed security.
He runs outside, guy across the street chases him.... so i guess the mass shooter had the right to shoot the guy who was chasing him right??

^^actually happened and no one was defending the guy for "self defense".
don't see you guys saying the person who chased after him was the aggressor and should be charged?
etc etc.

- - - Updated - - -

If you're armed and someone comes at you to physically assault you, they could take your gun and kill you, so therefore it is self defense. I will wait to see what the courts say, I have a strong feeling Kyle will walk free.

Why do you guys keep leaving out so many parts...oh right....biased

[Ivanstone]

If someone comes with their face covered and tried to physically assault you and you stop them that's self defense, that's how that works my friend.

If someone threatens violence at you while you’re engaging in your constitutional right to protest and you stop them, that’s self-defence.

This is the same shit with Ahmed Arbery murder. Three dipshits with guns threaten an unarmed man minding his own business. When the unarmed man tries to defend himself by grabbing one of their guns, he is killed. All of the alt reich dumbfucks immediately jump to the defence of the goons with the guns instead of the unarmed man who merely wanted to defend himself.

[Captain Proton]

If you're armed and someone comes at you to physically assault you, they could take your gun and kill you, so therefore it is self defense. I will wait to see what the courts say, I have a strong feeling Kyle will walk free.

I'm afraid of anyone with a gun will shoot me. If they approach me I can shoot first!

[Endus]

If someone comes with their face covered and tried to physically assault you and you stop them that's self defense, that's how that works my friend.

Not according to the law, it doesn't.

You're objectively wrong about the facts, and you won't bother to inform yourself because you have a particular predetermined agenda you're pushing disinformation to support.

[jonnysensible]

https://www.washingtonpost.com/natio...illing-police/

In fact, according to Nate Dinguss, Reinoehl was clutching a cellphone and eating a gummy worm as he walked to his car outside an apartment complex in Lacey, Wash. That’s when officers opened fire without first announcing themselves or trying to arrest him, Dinguss, a 39-year-old who lives in the apartment complex, said in a statement shared with The Washington Post.

would anyone be suprised if the cops did a deathsquad hit?

[Coolthulhu]

As the guy running around with a gun? Yes, that’s exactly what it means... it’s why I keep using the school teacher that got shot by a school shooter... guess what, he also heard gun shots and then attacked the first person he saw with a gun... which I guess the school shooter shot him in “self defense”...

Edit: Do you think in school shootings or just massacres, the people who try to stop the shooter, are excluded as the shooter acting in self defense?

Edit 2: I guess, they would have to prove they knew he was the shooter from the grave... otherwise, the murderer acted in self defense.

This wasn't a school shooting, it was a clash between two factions, neither of which should've have been there in the first place. Plus, Rittenhouse was running away from a mob. Feel free to bring up episodes where a school shooter found himself in the same situation, I'll wait - aeons, because it never happened. Running at an actually active school shooter is one things, chasing a retreating guy who shot someone because someone tried to grab his gun is another thing entirely.

The second incident, however, Rittenhouse had already shot one person, and people were taking down an active shooter; you cannot reasonably claim they were the "aggressors" there..

A person who tried to grab his gun according to testimony submitted by someone who almost got shot as well.

About that skateboard pic..... There is video of the incident. He doesn't hit him with the board. He uses it as a shield while trying to take the gun from him.

For someone supposedly not right wing you sure regurgitate a lot of their talking points.

Shield himself with the skateboard? That's not what the court documents say. And it's not what the images picture. Also, I've never denied being right wing - the problem is that according to you lot being right wing automatically means justifying a number of behaviors and stances I don't justify or support. Rittenhouse wasn't supposed to be there in the first place, he broke laws and lied by, and I'm positive I called him an imbecile on more than one occasion. Being right wing doesn't being being a white supremacist nor defending the actions of imbeciles such as Rittenhouse. Putting things in the right perspective is not defending Rittenhouse. The skateboard hit to his head should've been fatal for all I care, it would've spared me at least part of your baseless, biased accusations.

Your whole schtick in this thread has been defending Rittenhouse from "aggressors" but the mere notion of protesters defending themselves from an active shooter is mob justice. Deductive reasoning suggests you think it's ok.

Strange way of defending oneself, chasing after a retreating "active shooter" as a mob yelling "get him", one of which armed with a gun and another one hitting him on the head with a skateboard and grabbing the barrel of his gun.

This is an abject, transparent lie that not a single one of the videos support.

He fell all on his own, stop lying.

He was hit on the head by a skateboard. It's in the court acts as well as on video. Again, him getting knocked down or falling by himself is completely irrelevant. Him getting a skateboard swung at his head, however, is not.

The law in Wisconsin does not support the use of lethal force in self defense unless you have reasonable grounds to believe you're facing imminent death or great bodily harm. Someone chasing you does not pose such a threat.

What about a skateboard to the head? Would that qualify? Rhetorical question, by the way.

Stop ignoring the law.

About that, did the curfew not apply to everyone? Is setting buildings on fire lawful?

I'm afraid of anyone with a gun will shoot me. If they approach me I can shoot first!

One of the guys who gave chase (Grosskreutz, the one who was shot in the arm) was brandishing a handgun (I edited the image to spare people from a rather graphic image of the arm wound). Another good example of why you shouldn't brandish weapons unless you're going to use them. For the records, had Grosskreutz shot and killed Rosenbaum instead... tough luck. One less dangerous individual to worry and polemicize about.

[Endus]

What about a skateboard to the head? Would that qualify? Rhetorical question, by the way.

That was all part of the second incident, where bystanders were trying to take down an active shooter. Where they were entirely justified in that use of force, and Rittenhouse would not have a self-defense argument.

About that, did the curfew not apply to everyone? Is setting buildings on fire lawful?

That's an attempt to shift goalposts, attack the victims, and lean on emotion over facts. Just by asking that question, you demonstrate bad faith.

[GreenJesus]

This wasn't a school shooting, it was a clash between two factions, neither of which should've have been there in the first place. Plus, Rittenhouse was running away from a mob. Feel free to bring up episodes where a school shooter found himself in the same situation, I'll wait - aeons, because it never happened. Running at an actually active school shooter is one things, chasing a retreating guy who shot someone because someone tried to grab his gun is another thing entirely.


A person who tried to grab his gun according to testimony submitted by someone who almost got shot as well.


Shield himself with the skateboard? That's not what the court documents say. And it's not what the images picture. Also, I've never denied being right wing - the problem is that according to you lot being right wing automatically means justifying a number of behaviors and stances I don't justify or support. Rittenhouse wasn't supposed to be there in the first place, he broke laws and lied by, and I'm positive I called him an imbecile on more than one occasion. Being right wing doesn't being being a white supremacist nor defending the actions of imbeciles such as Rittenhouse. Putting things in the right perspective is not defending Rittenhouse. The skateboard hit to his head should've been fatal for all I care, it would've spared me at least part of your baseless, biased accusations.


Strange way of defending oneself, chasing after a retreating "active shooter" as a mob yelling "get him", one of which armed with a gun and another one hitting him on the head with a skateboard and grabbing the barrel of his gun.


He was hit on the head by a skateboard. It's in the court acts as well as on video. Again, him getting knocked down or falling by himself is completely irrelevant. Him getting a skateboard swung at his head, however, is not.


What about a skateboard to the head? Would that qualify? Rhetorical question, by the way.


About that, did the curfew not apply to everyone? Is setting buildings on fire lawful?


One of the guys who gave chase (Grosskreutz, the one who was shot in the arm) was brandishing a handgun (I edited the image to spare people from a rather graphic image of the arm wound). Another good example of why you shouldn't brandish weapons unless you're going to use them. For the records, had Grosskreutz shot and killed Rosenbaum instead... tough luck. One less dangerous individual to worry and polemicize about.

I'd like to see these armchair "I wouldn't need to defend myself because I can run fast and not trip" people deal with multiple felons chasing after them. One has a pistol that had already shot in the air, one has a skateboard used to assault you over the head with, and another one trying to take your weapon away to use against you. Yes, the people chasing Rittenhouse were felons for violent / sexual assault. Not exactly "good people" that you can depend on to reason with and hope they don't kill you.

[Endus]

I'd like to see these armchair "I wouldn't need to defend myself because I can run fast and not trip" people deal with multiple felons chasing after them. One has a pistol that had already shot in the air, one has a skateboard used to assault you over the head with, and another one trying to take your weapon away to use against you.

I wouldn't have gone armed to a protest looking to stir shit up, shot someone in the head, and then fled the scene and avoided turning myself in to the cops.

So yeah; I'd never be in the situation that Rittenhouse was in, because I'm not a dangerously violent idiot who'd murder someone.

I have been assaulted, however. And managed to not kill anyone in extricating myself from the situation, somehow.

[GreenJesus]

I wouldn't have gone armed to a protest looking to stir shit up, shot someone in the head, and then fled the scene and avoided turning myself in to the cops.

So yeah; I'd never be in the situation that Rittenhouse was in, because I'm not a dangerously violent idiot who'd murder someone.

I have been assaulted, however. And managed to not kill anyone in extricating myself from the situation, somehow.

No no no. You are mixing things up. He was running away and THEN shot someone in the head while they were trying to assault him.

And lol 4Head "I just wouldn't have gone to a protest".

[Edge-]

No no no. You are mixing things up. He was running away and THEN shot someone in the head while they were trying to assault him.

And lol 4Head "I just wouldn't have gone to a protest".

After the 3 shootings, he fled the city and state and returned home. He made no effort to turn himself into local police to provide a statement regarding his involvement with the shootings.

[Coolthulhu]

That was all part of the second incident, where bystanders were trying to take down an active shooter. Where they were entirely justified in that use of force, and Rittenhouse would not have a self-defense argument.



That's an attempt to shift goalposts, attack the victims, and lean on emotion over facts. Just by asking that question, you demonstrate bad faith.

I could care less of Rittenhouse's self-defense argument or shifting goalposts. I would've been OK had Grosskreutz shot him -it was after all a chaotic situation, and one such as Rittenhouse would hardly be missed (how many times will I have to repeat that, I wonder?). You and those who follow your biased, ideologically-tainted train of thought are those in bad faith.

I'd like to see these armchair "I wouldn't need to defend myself because I can run fast and not trip" people deal with multiple felons chasing after them. One has a pistol that had already shot in the air, one has a skateboard used to assault you over the head with, and another one trying to take your weapon away to use against you. Yes, the people chasing Rittenhouse were felons for violent / sexual assault. Not exactly "good people" that you can depend on to reason with and hope they don't kill you.

Except that Rittenhouse was fleeing, he wasn't training his weapon on anyone when he was skateboarded and the guy grabbed his guns' barrel. And don't put words in my mouth, I wouldn't have been there in the first place.

I wouldn't have gone armed to a protest looking to stir shit up, shot someone in the head, and then fled the scene and avoided turning myself in to the cops.

So yeah; I'd never be in the situation that Rittenhouse was in, because I'm not a dangerously violent idiot who'd murder someone.

I have been assaulted, however. And managed to not kill anyone in extricating myself from the situation, somehow.

That makes two of us, in all of those aspects. Isn't that amazing?

[Edge-]

That’s obviously a complete misunderstanding of the argument. There’s still uncertainty about what preceded the moment of shooting. The video of Rosenbaum shouting “shoot me, n—!” to others, and his criminal background would all lend credence to a defense theory (remember defense just has to provide plausible theories, not beyond reasonable doubt) that Rosenbaum initiated the confrontation.

Rittenhouse's lawyers would have to establish that Rittenhouse was aware of said criminal history. Which he wasn't, so it's not much of a defense.

Would you ever start chasing around a 17 year old who shows up at a riot with an assault rifle?

Was Rittenhouse telling everyone he was 17? I mean, I'm in my 30's and without my beard I look like I'm bloody 20 at best.

But yeah, I'd like to think that if I saw an armed guy at a protest waving his gun around and acting dangerously with it that I'd try to disarm him to ensure that he doesn't harm others around him.

[GreenJesus]

Rittenhouse's lawyers would have to establish that Rittenhouse was aware of said criminal history. Which he wasn't, so it's not much of a defense.



Was Rittenhouse telling everyone he was 17? I mean, I'm in my 30's and without my beard I look like I'm bloody 20 at best.

But yeah, I'd like to think that if I saw an armed guy at a protest waving his gun around and acting dangerously with it that I'd try to disarm him to ensure that he doesn't harm others around him.

You don't really need to know their criminal history to know that they were very aggressive and violent people based on the footage of them I saw.

[Edge-]

You don't really need to know their criminal history to know that they were very aggressive and violent people based on the footage of them I saw.

Sure, but verbal sparring isn't a threat of violence. And the arguments in Rittenhouse's defense, like the one I quoted, largely rely on him being aware of Rosenbaum's prior criminal history which is literally impossible.

[KaPe]

You don't really need to know their criminal history to know that they were very aggressive and violent people based on the footage of them I saw.

This is in contrast to someone wielding an assault rifle - which is a well known gesture of peace, right?