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

[unfilteredJW]

"The guy with the assault rifle was scared of loud words and a tshirt mask" is a weird take.

[GreenJesus]

"The guy with the assault rifle was scared of loud words and a tshirt mask" is a weird take.

If Rittenhouse really wanted to he could have just stood his ground and shot everyone that came near him. He didn't, he tried to run away, but when people attempted to steal his gun from him and assault him with weapons, he shot. He was close to being the guy "without an assault rifle".

An assault rifle is worthless if you don't want to use it so being "scared" of others while holding a rifle is irrelevant.

[unfilteredJW]

If Rittenhouse really wanted to he could have just stood his ground and shot everyone that came near him. He didn't, he tried to run away, but when people attempted to steal his gun from him and assault him with weapons, he shot. He was close to being the guy "without an assault rifle".

An assault rifle is worthless if you don't want to use it so being "scared" of others while holding a rifle is irrelevant.

He used it though? Hence the loud yelling the paranoid murderer heard.

[Felya]

An assault rifle is worthless if you don't want to use it so being "scared" of others while holding a rifle is irrelevant.

Uhm... this means everyone should be scared of people holding an assault rifle... this means he murdered people that were scared that he wanted to use it, were acting in self defending... this means he inherently was the aggressor...

[GreenJesus]

Uhm... this means everyone should be scared of people holding an assault rifle... this means he murdered people that were scared that he wanted to use it, were acting in self defending... this means he inherently was the aggressor...

That's not what I meant. I meant just because you are holding a rifle doesn't mean you can't be scared of other people assaulting you.

[Felya]

That's not what I meant. I meant just because you are holding a rifle doesn't mean you can't be scared of other people assaulting you.

Sure, doesn’t it explicitly mean that you are scared of others, otherwise you wouldn’t need it?

[Bodakane]

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".

Rosenbaum never touched Kyle or his gun.

[postman1782]

People should have let the police handle this instead of chasing someone with a gun, that is rather foolish

It is clear, the police didn't care, considering they were basically sucking the militia off, before pushing protesters and the militia together.

- - - Updated - - -

Chasing after a guy with a gun who just shot someone instead of trusting the police to handle it is mind boggling.

- - - Updated - - -



Why were they trying to flag the police if they didn't want the police involved?

Well, the police let the shooter walk right by them, even after he killed 2 people and maimed another.

[Elegiac]

If Rittenhouse really wanted to he could have just stood his ground and shot everyone that came near him.

"He could have been an actual mass murderer rather than a potential mass murderer" isn't the winning argument you think it is.

Watching 2A advocates carefully deconstruct their own "good guy with a gun" mythology has got to be one of the most hilarious parts of this year.

[postman1782]

They gave water to someone so therefore they can't arrest that person if that person commits a crime? If police gave me water does that mean I can break in and loot a store and not worry about them?

Well, they told him to get out of the way as people were screaming at the cops that he was the shooter, so, no, they can't arrest the person that committed the crime.

- - - Updated - - -

The courts will decide, I feel Kyle has a real case since the Robert earlier had video of him being aggressive shouting "shoot me Nword" over and over then in another video he threw something at him as he chased him. That is the very definition of self defense.

Telling someone to shoot you, over and over, still does not give anyone a right to actually shoot you. And throwing something at you, that is not deadly in the fucking slightest, still doesn't give a case of self defense.

- - - Updated - - -

If I taunted you to shoot me and then I chased you and threw something at you, you wouldn't find that aggressive?

- - - Updated - - -



He didn't shoot a black man...

He pointed his gun at a black man before the whole incident started.

- - - Updated - - -

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



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

Well, they are pretty buddy buddy with the Patriot Prayer up there. A couple years ago, a cop told the Patriot Prayer people to leave an area, even ones with warrants out for their arrest. Even warning them, they had warrants out for their arrest. And there is news sources showing that the Patriot prayer people text the cops quite often. So one white nationalist group is texting others. How unsurprising. https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/...t-group-leader

[postman1782]

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".

This was after 2 witnesses saw him pointing his gun at people. Which is a crime.

- - - Updated - - -

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.

Obviously there’s still the question of what counts as self defense and all that, and overall it’s a minor point, but it’s not completely irrelevant.

- - - Updated - - -



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

First off, it doesn't matter what someone says to you, that doesn't give you the right to shoot someone, even if they tell you to shoot them. And no, Rittenhouse didn't know his criminal background, so his background lends NOTHING to the case. And no, there are 2 witnesses showing that Rittenhouse was pointing his gun at people.

And last, this was no riot.

- - - Updated - - -

If Rittenhouse really wanted to he could have just stood his ground and shot everyone that came near him. He didn't, he tried to run away, but when people attempted to steal his gun from him and assault him with weapons, he shot. He was close to being the guy "without an assault rifle".

An assault rifle is worthless if you don't want to use it so being "scared" of others while holding a rifle is irrelevant.

Actually, no he couldn't. Because Wisconsin is not a "stand your ground" state. It is a "Castle Doctrine" state. And since it wasn't his "castle" he has no castle doctrine he could use.

And judging by the actual shooting in the video, since I found the first shooting, with about as clear as you can get, Rosenbaum didn't even touch him.

https://www.reddit.com/r/ACAB/commen...tatute_in_the/

This is the clearest video I can see of him, he wasn't cornered as he could clearly keep running and did after he killed Rosenbaum. And no one even touched him. Throwing something at him, doesn't give a right to kill anyone.

[Egomaniac]

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.

That's not quite true. If his lawyers are trying to make an affirmative defense case they need to prove it.

It's basically "Yes, I did what I am being accused of...but here are the reasons why it was not a crime"

[Coolthulhu]

Rosenbaum never touched Kyle or his gun.

Not for lack of trying, according to McGinniss’ testimony, but let’s keep ignoring the inconvenient parts.

[Endus]

Again, it's not whether Rittenhouse was aware of it, it's evidence that Rosenbaum is significantly more likely than the average person to provoke a confrontation.

I'm not referring to what happened at the moment of shooting, it's more of a "how did Rittenhouse end up fleeing from Rosenbaum across a parking lot" question.

It seriously does not matter one whit who started the conflict.

All that matters is determining if Rosenbaum presented a reasonable threat of imminent death or great bodily harm to Rittenhouse, in the moment that Rittenhouse shot him.

Anything else is sophistry being used to distract, to victim-blame, to avoid dealing with that central question. Largely because it has a fairly obvious answer; no, he did not.

If it turns out Rittenhouse provoked it, that makes it worse for Rittenhouse, but even if Rosenbaum was entirely unprovoked and just being an abusive, belligerent, racist dickwad, that's reason to think he's a jerk, it's not a reason or justification to shoot him in the head.

[Bodakane]

Not for lack of trying, according to McGinniss’ testimony, but let’s keep ignoring the inconvenient parts.

So fucking what, BFP #325?

[Endus]

https://www.bloomberg.com/opinion/ar...sted-gun-logic

This guy is making a lot of the same arguments I've been making about how guns twist the logic of self defense laws:

"If someone threw a plastic bag at you, and you responded by killing that person with your bare hands, you would most likely go to jail for murder.

A gun twists that logic. Rittenhouse can and presumably will claim that he feared Rosenbaum would take his gun away from him and shoot him with it. In other words, the presence of Rittenhouse’s own weapon gives Rittenhouse the opportunity to claim that he was in fear of bodily harm.

This is a terrible argument that would get destroyed in court.

Why would the person who took your gun from you pose a lethal threat, automatically, after having taken the gun?
If it's because they're armed with a gun now, then you've admitted you presented such a threat before he took the gun. This means that being armed in public is a lethal threat to everyone around you, by itself, which is obviously ridiculous.
So you need some other reason. And that, you'll have to justify based on context, and that they now have your gun cannot be considered as part of that evaluation. We eliminated that potential just up there.

The only thing he says that I kind of disagree with is the idea that it seems absurd that the prospect of having his gun taken away is an argument for self defense. To me, if you allow people to walk around an urban area openly carrying rifles for self defense (absurd), then it just logically follows that the people should be able to use these weapons of "self defense" if someone is trying to forcibly take the weapon away. How is it supposed to be effective in self defense if a bigger person can just wrestle it away from you then shoot you?

Being armed doesn't give you the right to pre-emptively murder people "just in case".

Which is all you're trying to establish the basis for, here. Pre-emptive murder. The South Park "it's comin' right for us!" argument.

- - - Updated - - -

I know I'm never going to convince you of anything but, let's say, hypothetically, that Rosenbaum said, "I'm gonna take that gun and shoot you!" then started to run after Rittenhouse. Remember, there is witness testimony that he lunged for the gun. Would you still stick by your statement that it doesn't matter "one whit"?

What if Rittenhouse had said he was going to shoot Rosenbaum in the face and fuck the bullet hole?
What if Rittenhouse had said he was going to start shooting protestors if they didn't back off?
What if Rittenhouse kept pointing his loaded gun at people saying "pew, pew"?

As long as we're making shit up that didn't happen. You don't get to just imagine up new context. You get to find evidence that demonstrates that context to be true, first, or I'm going to point out that it's just you imagining shit and that's not admissible in court.

You're not convincing me because your arguments do not hold up to scrutiny.

[Endus]

He's a Harvard Law professor. You're a random guy on the internet. You both have opinions. Whose opinion holds more weight?

Unless you want to admit you're engaging in an appeal to authority fallacy, we both should hold equal weight. Assigning more weight to the professor is literally such a fallacy.

Oh, I didn't know that you were there and can tell us exactly what happened before the cameras started rolling!

The difference is I freely admitted I was making shit up that nobody should consider in their evaluation of the events in Kenosha.

You expected us to consider your overactive imagination as if it were a potential fact. That's what I was pointing out as silly.

But seriously, it was a thought experiment. I'm trying to illustrate that there are things that could have happened beforehand that would change the context of the shooting.

Everyone knows that. Nobody's suggesting it wouldn't.

We're pointing out that we have no such information, and thus no reason to presume that to be true. We base our opinions off the facts we have, not the facts we wish were true.

[Belize]

Remember, there is witness testimony that he lunged for the gun.

So you're saying Rosenbaum was trying to defend himself from Rittenhouse, since the latter was armed?

[BeepBoo]

If it's because they're armed with a gun now, then you've admitted you presented such a threat before he took the gun.

I'd say it's because they're someone who thought it was ok to steal something/take something forcefully from another individual. Only villains do that. Coupled with the fact that a gun is a lethal tool, that behavior is unacceptable. It's both things existing that allows the reasoning IMO.

Listening to an acknowledged expert isn't a fallacy. We've all been complaining for months about how Trump won't listen to scientists on covid. How is this any different?

It's simply acknowledging that, just because someone is an authority on something, doesn't innately and implicitly make something true. Plenty of authorities lie all the time. Or maybe our understanding of the thing they're an "expert" on isn't perfect. Example? Covid going from being thought by experts to be airborne, to particulate. Covid going from "it looks like you can't get it again" to "oh shit, we maybe wrong on that."

Taking authorities with a grain of salt is appropriate in almost all cases.

Just food for thought. However, I do agree with your point about endus.

[Belize]

As I said much earlier in the thread, under the laws of the country Rosenbaum has a right to defend himself by bringing his own gun (I know, crazy), but there's no logic to having a right to defend yourself with a gun if you can't defend an attack on the gun.

It's fun to put all the blame on Rittenhouse here but this is really a gun control problem, it'd be much better to focus on that than a stupid teenager.

This isn't a gun control problem, this is a psychopath bringing weapons with the clear intention of provoking others with it problem. Spin it all you want, Rittenhouse is entirely at fault here for threatening protesters and starting the ordeal.