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

[Endus]

You're a liar, he says Rosenbaum grabbed his gun right there.

You need to keep watching, and go with the full context, not just cherry-pick out of context, which is what you're trying to do here.

Yes, Rittenhouse claimed Rosenbaum was trying to grab his gun. Then cross-examination continued, and the prosecution dismantled that argument step by step, completely.

Cherry-picking is dishonest.

The area between the cars is dark, there was a large mob just past the cards and even Richard McGinnis though he was being cornered

I don't care what McGinnis thought. He wasn't cornered. That's an observable fact. McGinnis being wrong just means McGinnis was wrong.

Rosenbaum was already attacking him, Rosenbaum does not get to claim self defense when he was already in the act of attacking Kyle, and the statute is quite clear that Kyle was privileged to do so.

This is a lie. Nothing Rosenbaum did before being lethally threatened by Rittenhouse could reasonably be called an "attack". Literally all you have is "he ran towards Rittenhouse and said 'Fuck You' really loud." That's it.

Oh, and tossing a bag with a half-empty soda in it. Super threatening.

https://docs.legis.wisconsin.gov/sta...tes/939/iii/48
"Although intentionally pointing a firearm at another constitutes a violation of s. 941.20, under sub. (1) a person is privileged to point a gun at another person in self-defense if the person reasonably believes that the threat of force is necessary to prevent or terminate what he or she reasonably believes to be an unlawful interference. State v. Watkins, 2002 WI 101, 255 Wis. 2d 265, 647 N.W.2d 244, 00-0064."

Again, nothing Rosenbaum did was "unlawful".

[tehdang]

It's shit his previous nutter lawyer gave him to wear and it has nothing to do with his actions on a night months earlier.

No joke, when I saw the first lawyer antics and shit, I thought they’d blow the defense.

Firing that lawyer saved Rittenhouse. He needs the kind of guy he has right now, that doesn’t play things up for the cameras, but focuses on the facts of the case.

[Draco-Onis]

No joke, when I saw the first lawyer antics and shit, I thought they’d blow the defense.

Firing that lawyer saved Rittenhouse. He needs the kind of guy he has right now, that doesn’t play things up for the cameras, but focuses on the facts of the case.

His lawyer forced him and his mom into a bar after making him wear that T-shirt, underage drink, hang out with proud boys, throw racists sign then post it on social media? My god that lawyer must have mind control powers

[Endus]

Long Beach harbor is a main importation hub for ships coming from Asia and what not. It’s currently experiencing a lot of delays.

So it's a shitty "fresh off the boat" style racist joke.

Shit like that should get a judge summarily defrocked.

[Aurrora]

You need to keep watching, and go with the full context, not just cherry-pick out of context, which is what you're trying to do here.

Yes, Rittenhouse claimed Rosenbaum was trying to grab his gun. Then cross-examination continued, and the prosecution dismantled that argument step by step, completely.

Cherry-picking is dishonest.

Says the person that has been cherry-picking this entire time.

I don't care what McGinnis thought. He wasn't cornered. That's an observable fact. McGinnis being wrong just means McGinnis was wrong.

It's not an observable fact, it's a subjective impression both Kyle and McGinnis had given the conditions that night.

This is a lie. Nothing Rosenbaum did before being lethally threatened by Rittenhouse could reasonably be called an "attack". Literally all you have is "he ran towards Rittenhouse and said 'Fuck You' really loud." That's it.

Oh, and tossing a bag with a half-empty soda in it. Super threatening.

Doesn't need to be life threatening, read the statute. "Although intentionally pointing a firearm at another constitutes a violation of s. 941.20, under sub. (1) a person is privileged to point a gun at another person in self-defense if the person reasonably believes that the threat of force is necessary to prevent or terminate what he or she reasonably believes to be an unlawful interference. State v. Watkins, 2002 WI 101, 255 Wis. 2d 265, 647 N.W.2d 244, 00-0064."
He was privileged to point the firearm at Rosenbaum to dissuade him from attacking.

Again, nothing Rosenbaum did was "unlawful".

HE WAS ATTACKING KYLE. You already admitted earlier that you believed Kyle would have justification to punch or hit Rosenbaum with the stock, how could he possibly be justified if he was not already under attack? You are a liar.

- - - Updated - - -

So it's a shitty "fresh off the boat" style racist joke.

Shit like that should get a judge summarily defrocked.

It's a supply chain joke, there's nothing racist about it.

[Endus]

Says the person that has been cherry-picking this entire time.

Projection. You can't cite a single example of me doing so.

It's not an observable fact, it's a subjective impression both Kyle and McGinnis had given the conditions that night.

"Impressions" that are observably false.

Doesn't need to be life threatening, read the statute. "Although intentionally pointing a firearm at another constitutes a violation of s. 941.20, under sub. (1) a person is privileged to point a gun at another person in self-defense if the person reasonably believes that the threat of force is necessary to prevent or terminate what he or she reasonably believes to be an unlawful interference. State v. Watkins, 2002 WI 101, 255 Wis. 2d 265, 647 N.W.2d 244, 00-0064."
He was privileged to point the firearm at Rosenbaum to dissuade him from attacking.

Rosenbaum was not "attacking" and there was no unlawful interference, which is a requirement of the statute you're citing.

You're making that shit up.

HE WAS ATTACKING KYLE. You already admitted earlier that you believed Kyle would have justification to punch or hit Rosenbaum with the stock, how could he possibly be justified if he was not already under attack? You are a liar.

Because I was wrong. I've admitted I was wrong. I was operating off much worse footage and was making allowances for what might have happened in the last few moments. With the trial, we've had much better footage, from much more informative angles, which have shown there was no room for those allowances, which led me to adjust my take accordingly.

That's how rational analysis works; if new information comes up that would change your conclusions, you change your conclusions to match the full body of the evidence.

You're literally whining that I'm accounting for new evidence as it comes to light, as if that's a bad thing.

[Aurrora]

Projection. You can't cite a single example of me doing so.

Liar, you're choosing what witness testimony to believe. Four witnesses stated first hand knowledge that the owners of the Car Source gave them permission to be there with corroborating evidence and you're still claiming they didn't have permission to be there.

"Impressions" that are observably false.

It doesn't matter what you might know after the fact, what was observable at the time is all the matters and both Kyle and McGinnis said it was a dead end.

Rosenbaum was not "attacking" and there was no unlawful interference, which is a requirement of the statute you're citing.

You're making that shit up.

He was attacking, stop lying.

Because I was wrong. I've admitted I was wrong. I was operating off much worse footage and was making allowances for what might have happened in the last few moments. With the trial, we've had much better footage, from much more informative angles, which have shown there was no room for those allowances, which led me to adjust my take accordingly.

That's how rational analysis works; if new information comes up that would change your conclusions, you change your conclusions to match the full body of the evidence.

You're literally whining that I'm accounting for new evidence as it comes to light, as if that's a bad thing.

You are a liar. The forensic evidence shows that Rosenbaum was grabbing the gun.

[Endus]

Liar, you're choosing what witness testimony to believe. Four witnesses stated first hand knowledge that the owners of the Car Source gave them permission to be there with corroborating evidence and you're still claiming they didn't have permission to be there.

Because A> they have no evidence to support that claim, and B> the owner of the Car Source says they're lying.

Why would I believe unsourced claims made without any evidence to back them up? That's not "cherry-picking", that's realizing that their accounts are not supported by any evidence at all, and are contradicted by someone who, if they were correct, would have supported their accounting.

This is how analysis works. You take all the evidence, and you compare it all against each other. You don't just blindly pick something out of context. Which is what you're doing, in this very example, while complaining that I'm considering all the evidence and somehow that's "bad".

It doesn't matter what you might know after the fact, what was observable at the time is all the matters and both Kyle and McGinnis said it was a dead end.

That's not "observable". That's not what "observable" means.

And they were both definitively wrong about that claim. It wasn't a dead end, and Kyle left out the other side of that "dead end" literally moments later.

He was attacking, stop lying.

I'm not.

Rosenbaum never attacked Rittenhouse.

Rittenhouse claimed otherwise, but he couldn't back that claim up with any actual evidence under cross-examination. That's why I linked the video.

Again, your argument is whining that I don't just take an unsupported claim as verified fact but instead look at the entire body of the evidence to determine if that claims holds up. In this case, it clearly does not.

You are a liar. The forensic evidence shows that Rosenbaum was grabbing the gun.

At best, it shows he was reaching towards the gun. Video makes it incredibly unlikely he ever actually touched the weapon, and if he did, it was basically the same moment that Rittenhouse fired. They weren't wrestling over the weapon, and by the time Rosenbaum made any move for the weapon, Rittenhouse had already turned and lethally threatened Rosenbaum without justification.

You really want me to only consider the medical examiner's report on Rosenbaum's powder burns, which aren't conclusive, but not consider the video evidence where we can see he doesn't grab onto the gun.

[Aurrora]

Because A> they have no evidence to support that claim, and B> the owner of the Car Source says they're lying.

Why would I believe unsourced claims made without any evidence to back them up? That's not "cherry-picking", that's realizing that their accounts are not supported by any evidence at all, and are contradicted by someone who, if they were correct, would have supported their accounting.

Except their accounts are supported by evidence. The keys given to them for the building. The picture the owner took with them. The text message Kyle sent to the owner. You are cherry-picking. You are disregarding how evasive the brothers were on the stand and that they had reason to perjure themselves to prevent vicarious liability.

That's not "observable". That's not what "observable" means.

And they were both definitively wrong about that claim. It wasn't a dead end, and Kyle left out the other side of that "dead end" literally moments later.

That is was observable means. What could be observed given the conditions of that night. There were cars and a gap in the floodlights causing extreme shadows in that portion of the car lot. McGinnis could not see a path through and neither could Kyle while running through the lot.

I'm not.

You are.

Rosenbaum never attacked Rittenhouse.

Stop lying.

Rittenhouse claimed otherwise, but he couldn't back that claim up with any actual evidence under cross-examination. That's why I linked the video.

Again, your argument is whining that I don't just take an unsupported claim as verified fact but instead look at the entire body of the evidence to determine if that claims holds up. In this case, it clearly does not.

Your argument is nonsense, you're attacking someone before you make contact with them.

At best, it shows he was reaching towards the gun. Video makes it incredibly unlikely he ever actually touched the weapon, and if he did, it was basically the same moment that Rittenhouse fired. They weren't wrestling over the weapon, and by the time Rosenbaum made any move for the weapon, Rittenhouse had already turned and lethally threatened Rosenbaum without justification.

He was attacking him! What are you not understanding about that? Kyle was privileged to threaten Rosenbaum to dissuade him from attacking.
There's no video that shows he wasn't grabbing the gun and the FBI's video clearly shows that Rosenbaum had lunged at Kyle before he was shot.

You really want me to only consider the medical examiner's report on Rosenbaum's powder burns, which aren't conclusive, but not consider the video evidence where we can see he doesn't grab onto the gun.

You can't see he wasn't grabbing the gun.

[Endus]

Except their accounts are supported by evidence. The keys given to them for the building. The picture the owner took with them. The text message Kyle sent to the owner. You are cherry-picking. You are disregarding how evasive the brothers were on the stand and that they had reason to perjure themselves to prevent vicarious liability.

That doesn't support the account. There are myriad explanations for each of those. Why should I consider a secret, complex plot, when the simple answer is that they lied about it?

That is was observable means. What could be observed given the conditions of that night. There were cars and a gap in the floodlights causing extreme shadows in that portion of the car lot. McGinnis could not see a path through and neither could Kyle while running through the lot.

You're explaining why they were wrong. Not that they were right.

Your argument is nonsense, you're attacking someone before you make contact with them.

Rosenbaum literally never made contact with Rittenhouse. "Running towards you and shouting" is not an "attack" by any measure of that word.

He was attacking him! What are you not understanding about that? Kyle was privileged to threaten Rosenbaum to dissuade him from attacking.

I understand your argument.

It's just wrong about the facts.

Rosenbaum was not attacking Rittenhouse.

There's no video that shows he wasn't grabbing the gun and the FBI's video clearly shows that Rosenbaum had lunged at Kyle before he was shot.

There clearly is. There's drone footage that gives a nice aerial shot as they get to the corner, and shows Rittenhouse turning and aiming well before Rosenbaum is close to him, and Rosenbaum only grabbing towards the barrel of the gun after that threat was made, and no indicated he actually got his hands on the gun at all.

Rittenhouse initiated violence, here. It's on video and everything.

[DingDongKing]

I just wanna know what Bruce Shroeder had for lunch, bois.

[Aurrora]

That doesn't support the account. There are myriad explanations for each of those. Why should I consider a secret, complex plot, when the simple answer is that they lied about it?

The secret complex plot is exactly what you're choosing to believe though. That a group of strangers chose to converge on this Car Source lot to defend it and then are lying about being given permission by the owner. The simplest answer is that the owners don't want to be liable.

You're explaining why they were wrong. Not that they were right.

It doesn't matter, what information they had available led both of them to believe there was no path through the cars and gives Kyle the reasonable fear if great bodily harm and death when he believed he couldn't continue to retreat.

Rosenbaum literally never made contact with Rittenhouse. "Running towards you and shouting" is not an "attack" by any measure of that word.

Yes it is. Would you argue that Rosenbaum was not attacking Kyle if he had had a knife in his hand?

I understand your argument.

It's just wrong about the facts.

Rosenbaum was not attacking Rittenhouse.

He was, and you're a liar.

There clearly is. There's drone footage that gives a nice aerial shot as they get to the corner, and shows Rittenhouse turning and aiming well before Rosenbaum is close to him, and Rosenbaum only grabbing towards the barrel of the gun after that threat was made, and no indicated he actually got his hands on the gun at all.

Rittenhouse initiated violence, here. It's on video and everything.

No it isn't. You're a liar. Rosenbaum attacked him first.

[Endus]

The secret complex plot is exactly what you're choosing to believe though. That a group of strangers chose to converge on this Car Source lot to defend it and then are lying about being given permission by the owner. The simplest answer is that the owners don't want to be liable.

That isn't the simplest answer, and there's no possible liability to the owners, anyway. That's what I mean about you making up complex plots.

It doesn't matter, what information they had available led both of them to believe there was no path through the cars and gives Kyle the reasonable fear if great bodily harm and death when he believed he couldn't continue to retreat.

It wouldn't give Kyle any reasonable fear of any of that, even if it were true, and we can see on video that it wasn't.

Yes it is. Would you argue that Rosenbaum was not attacking Kyle if he had had a knife in his hand?

He didn't have a knife in his hand.

But yes; unless he actually tried to stab Rittenhouse, it wasn't an "attack". This is where you expose your hypocrisy; you're suggesting that confronting someone while holding a weapon is an "attack" when it's Rosenbaum (and more specifically, when he's unarmed, too), but it's somehow magically not an "attack" when it's Rittenhouse doing the confronting with a gun.

No it isn't. You're a liar. Rosenbaum attacked him first.

Literally no attack.

Was it the running towards Rittenhouse you're calling an "attack", or was it shouting "Fuck you" at Rittenhouse? It's gotta be one of the two, because that's all Rosenbaum did. Oh, and tossing a half-empty pop bottle. Maybe that was the "attack"? You've got three things, which one was the "attack" that, in your opinion, justified a threat of lethal force by Rittenhouse?

[Aurrora]

That isn't the simplest answer, and there's no possible liability to the owners, anyway. That's what I mean about you making up complex plots.

Have you never heard of vicarious liability? You're completely wrong on this.

It wouldn't give Kyle any reasonable fear of any of that, even if it were true, and we can see on video that it wasn't.

Yes it would, stop lying.

He didn't have a knife in his hand.

But yes; unless he actually tried to stab Rittenhouse, it wasn't an "attack". This is where you expose your hypocrisy; you're suggesting that confronting someone while holding a weapon is an "attack" when it's Rosenbaum (and more specifically, when he's unarmed, too), but it's somehow magically not an "attack" when it's Rittenhouse doing the confronting with a gun.

No, this is exposing your own hypocrisy. If someone's running at you with a knife you have no obligation to allow them to try to stab you before exercising your right to self defense. It's fucking absurd. There's a reason the 21 foot rule is thing. Kyle similarly had no obligation to allow Rosenbaum to begin beating him before he could feel threatened enough to attempt to dissuade Rosenbaum.

Literally no attack.

There was, stop lying.

Was it the running towards Rittenhouse you're calling an "attack", or was it shouting "Fuck you" at Rittenhouse? It's gotta be one of the two, because that's all Rosenbaum did.

Yes, the attack begins with the charge at the corner of the parking lot before Ziminski fires his gun.

[PhaelixWW]

Yes, the attack begins with the charge at the corner of the parking lot before Ziminski fires his gun.

So... when Rittenhouse was chasing after Joseph before that... that was also an attack?

Good to know. I guess you agree, then, that Rittenhouse attacked first and thus has no privilege.

[Aurrora]

So... when Rittenhouse was chasing after Joseph before that... that was also an attack?

Good to know. I guess you agree, then, that Rittenhouse attacked first and thus has no privilege.

He was never chasing Rosenbaum, he was going to the burning car in the corner of the Car Source lot.

[Combatbutler]

So an Idiot got shot by an even greater Idiot, that seems to be the gist of it all.

[Zeth Hawkins]

Defense dropped the ball by allowing, into the instruction, the blurry picture that allegedly (with no witness testimony) shows Kyle aiming the gun at Ziminski.

[Endus]

Have you never heard of vicarious liability? You're completely wrong on this.

Holds employers responsible for negligent or intentional tort actions by staff.

Unless you're arguing that the owners brought these people in to shoot innocent protesters, there's not gonna be any vicarious liability.

You're just ducking the facts to push a conspiracy theory.

Yes it would, stop lying.

Not lying. Your argument is completely unreasonable.

No, this is exposing your own hypocrisy. If someone's running at you with a knife you have no obligation to allow them to try to stab you before exercising your right to self defense. It's fucking absurd.

"Running at you with a knife" is not attacking you. They need to have expressed intent to stab you, somehow, and "running towards you" does not do that.

Plus, it's irrelevant here, since Rittenhouse knew Rosenbaum was unarmed in the first place, when he shot him.

There's a reason the 21 foot rule is thing.

In terms of police procedure for dealing with someone who both has a knife and has expressed hostile intent somehow. It doesn't mean they can shoot anyone with a knife who gets closer than 21 feet to them, which is what you're trying to argue, here.

It's not a "rule" in any legally defensible sense, and wouldn't be applicable to anyone not a police officer.

Kyle similarly had no obligation to allow Rosenbaum to begin beating him before he could feel threatened enough to attempt to dissuade Rosenbaum.

There was no indication of any such attack. That's where you, and Rittenhouse, make shit up.

Yes, the attack begins with the charge at the corner of the parking lot before Ziminski fires his gun.

Again, "running towards someone" is not an "attack".

You're going to have to specifically define exactly what action Rosenbaum took that you saw as an "attack". Running towards someone isn't one. The pop bottle toss is ridiculous in that context. Was it yelling "Fuck you" real loud?

Because now we're out of things Rosenbaum actually did, and I'm not going to entertain delusional fantasies about what you wish he might have done but didn't actually do.

- - - Updated - - -

He was never chasing Rosenbaum, he was going to the burning car in the corner of the Car Source lot.

Interesting that you're willing to present context when it protects Rittenhouse, but not when it condemns him.

This is what is meant by "cherry-picking".

- - - Updated - - -

Defense dropped the ball by allowing, into the instruction, the blurry picture that allegedly (with no witness testimony) shows Kyle aiming the gun at Ziminski.

What grounds could they have had to refuse it?

They would have needed to find grounds to dispute the results of the forensic enhancement tools, which are standard tools for exactly this kind of work.

[tikcol]

There was no indication of any such attack. That's where you, and Rittenhouse, make shit up.

Again, "running towards someone" is not an "attack".

Except for the witness(ess) that swore under oath and confirmed Rittenhouse's testimony that they had previously encountered Rosenbaum previously that night and that he said he "would kill them if he saw them again"

Then he "lunged" (according to you) at Rittenhouse's weapon. Or, grabbed it, according to the evidence.

If I had a gun and a guy that previously said he would kill me if he saw me that night again, proceeded to try or grab the weapon I had on me.. I'd shoot him too and probably so would you.