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

[postman1782]

If he does it for all cases not necessarily bias, just his "bad" practices, if he is treating Kyle differently then other cases clear bias then.



The law actually wasn't clear on this for 16 and 17 year olds in response to shot guns and rifles due more in part to hunting, but the wording of it isn't clear that it is limited to just when they are hunting as it is stated. You can argue the intent was for hunting but the law doesn't make it clear, as it was discussed during the court case, which is in part why the prosecutor didn't pursue the charge and it was dismissed. Honestly I think they could have gotten him on that still, as I think the jury wouldn't have thought to much about it.

Also lol at your final line.



? What history was allowed, I know for fact he didn't allow discussion of the fact Rosembaum was a convicted serial child rapist, or the other charges that the people shot had. Can you provide any proof he did? Also please stop putting terrorist, it is wrong in every sense of the word and you are devaluing its meaning by dropping it here, either he is murderer, or someone defending himself, terrorism has nothing to do with it.

Nope. Rittenhouse is a terrorist that hung out with other terrorists. He went there with the LITERAL terrorist group the Boogaloo Boys. Literally the Facebook page he was responding to, to go with a bunch of people, were all Boogaloo boys. And then he hung out with the Proud Boys, who are also white nationalist terrorists.

- - - Updated - - -

That's not true.

If you shoplift and someone tries to stab you... they have escalated the situation far beyond a propotional response. At that point, they have become the aggressor.

So, if someone steals a lady's purse, that lady can't shoot them in response? Basically the same thing. And depending on what the shoplifter tried to steal, it could possibly be the same value in property lost.

[Egomaniac]

So, if someone steals a lady's purse, that lady can't shoot them in response? Basically the same thing. And depending on what the shoplifter tried to steal, it could possibly be the same value in property lost.

In most cases? No, the lady cannot shoot someone just for stealing her purse. Now, if they were using a weapon in their attempt to steal her purse...then it becomes a different story.

[postman1782]

In most cases? No, the lady cannot shoot someone just for stealing her purse. Now, if they were using a weapon in their attempt to steal her purse...then it becomes a different story.

Funny, because that happens all the time, and I don't think I have ever heard of the shooter getting charged. I guess I would have to see an example of that happening.

- - - Updated - - -

But even then, in that situation, that means that Kyle Rittenhouse is even more of a murderer, since he was never really in danger.

[draynay]

How to prove you are ignorant of the trial case 101.

Have a little shame, being ignorant isn't something you should be proud of.

[DarkTZeratul]

But even then, in that situation, that means that Kyle Rittenhouse is even more of a murderer, since he was never really in danger.

Which has generally been Endus's point, at least: that even assuming he felt Rosenbaum posed a reasonable threat to defend himself, there was no cause for him to defend himself by escalating immediately to lethal force.

[Egomaniac]

Funny, because that happens all the time, and I don't think I have ever heard of the shooter getting charged. I guess I would have to see an example of that happening.

It really depends on the situation. Use of deadly force is generally only permitted when there is a reasonable belief that you or another person, is in jeopardy of serious injury or death. And what is "reasonable" can vary a lot depending on the context.

A mugger will often fit that the qualification...because there is usually at least the threat of violence presented if you do not comply.

A shoplifter, on the other hand, isn't normally threatening to anyone...so to try and stab someone because they stole a candy bar would not be an acceptable use of force. Now, if you atttempt to stop them and they pull a knife on you...then that changes the calculus.

[Endus]

Which has generally been Endus's point, at least: that even assuming he felt Rosenbaum posed a reasonable threat to defend himself, there was no cause for him to defend himself by escalating immediately to lethal force.

I said a lot super early on, right after this happened, back when the only video we had lost track of the two of them just before shots were fired, that it was possible Rosenbaum posed a threat to Rittenhouse. But that an unarmed man could not seriously be argued to be a lethal threat, absent some major context; for Zimmerman, by comparison, it was that Martin had already knocked him to the ground and was holding his head and slamming it into concrete; at that point, the concrete becomes a "deadly weapon", and that's the argument they used for lethal force. And I can accept that, while taking issue with ignoring that Zimmerman was effectively hunting Martin beforehand.

Same here; I said it was possible there was a real threat that warranted acting in self defense. That if Rittenhouse had smashed the butt of his rifle into Rosenbaum's face and run away, I'd have likely been supportive of that (less so now that we have clearer video and it's clear Rosenbaum never even tried to hit Rittenhouse).

Just not leaping right to lethal force. There's a saying that generally applies, here; when you have a hammer, every problem starts to look like a nail. In this case, when you have a gun, every self defense action looks like you should shoot someone. You have the weapon, so you immediately think of using it, rather than having restraint. This is an argument against carrying a weapon, precisely because lethal force is so often not justifiable. Better to not carry it and not even have the potential of making the wrong choice, because the wrong choice, in this case, means you commit intentional murder.

Self defense is not a binary. There's self defense by avoidance/flight. There's self defense through physical resistance. There's self defense through unarmed violence. There's self defense through armed-but-less-than-lethal violence; tasers or the like. And then there's self defense through lethal force. And self defense generally requires matching the threat level you're confronted with, not escalating to a higher level.

[Orange Joe]

Funny, because that happens all the time, and I don't think I have ever heard of the shooter getting charged. I guess I would have to see an example of that happening.

- - - Updated - - -

But even then, in that situation, that means that Kyle Rittenhouse is even more of a murderer, since he was never really in danger.

Got any sources? Just curious cause I don't think I have ever heard of this happening outside of armed robberies.

[PickleballAce]

[Endus]

Oh noes, peaceful protests. Whatever shall we do?

Look out, that one protester has a drum!

[postman1782]

Got any sources? Just curious cause I don't think I have ever heard of this happening outside of armed robberies.

https://www.chron.com/news/houston-t...y-14408566.php
No weapon presented by the man, shot twice by the woman, no charges pressed against the woman.

https://www.ksat.com/news/2019/01/22...ot-police-say/
Here is a secondary shooter that wasn't even part of the situation, in front of her home, husband shoots at would be burglar. No charges for the husband or wife. Man still at large as of the writing of the article.

There are a few others, but a lot of them are presenting weapons, which would give them the self defense option.

[uuuhname]

well, since they didn't reach a verdict right away gives me the probably false hope they might actually convict the little shit but we'll have to wait and see

- - - Updated - - -

Oh noes, peaceful protests. Whatever shall we do?

Look out, that one protester has a drum!

that drum is a deadly weapon.

[DarkTZeratul]

There's a saying that generally applies, here; when you have a hammer, every problem starts to look like a nail. In this case, when you have a gun, every self defense action looks like you should shoot someone. You have the weapon, so you immediately think of using it, rather than having restraint. This is an argument against carrying a weapon, precisely because lethal force is so often not justifiable.

I read an article this morning about a police officer denied qualified immunity for shooting (though thankfully not fatally) two service dogs, and reading the description of the incident, it sounds like this is precisely what happened. The dogs came up to him (not even aggressively), and his very first instinct was to shoot them both multiple times before apologizing, asking the owner if they were okay, and insisting that he loves dogs:
https://lawandcrime.com/animals/fede...-service-dogs/

[Egomaniac]

https://www.chron.com/news/houston-t...y-14408566.php
No weapon presented by the man, shot twice by the woman, no charges pressed against the woman.

https://www.ksat.com/news/2019/01/22...ot-police-say/
Here is a secondary shooter that wasn't even part of the situation, in front of her home, husband shoots at would be burglar. No charges for the husband or wife. Man still at large as of the writing of the article.

There are a few others, but a lot of them are presenting weapons, which would give them the self defense option.

That second link doesn't say what you think it does:

The woman resisted and screamed to her husband for help. When he came out, the would-be thief fired a shot, hitting a window. He ran to his pickup truck and drove away, police said.

The husband didn't shoot...the thief did.

As for the first...the suspect is being charged with aggravated robbery.

In Texas Aggravated Robbery is defined as:

https://statutes.capitol.texas.gov/D...weapon%3B%20or

Sec. 29.03. AGGRAVATED ROBBERY.
(a) A person commits an offense if he commits robbery as defined in Section 29.02, and he:

(1) causes serious bodily injury to another;

(2) uses or exhibits a deadly weapon; or

(3) causes bodily injury to another person or threatens or places another person in fear of imminent bodily injury or death, if the other person is:

(A) 65 years of age or older; or

(B) a disabled person.

(b) An offense under this section is a felony of the first degree.

(c) In this section, "disabled person" means an individual with a mental, physical, or developmental disability who is substantially unable to protect himself from harm.

So it seems, at the very least, violent injury was implied.

Also, there's a bit of a tip-off in the article itself when it says that the woman is not being charged at this time... implying that, if circumstances were different, she could have been charged.

[starstationprofm]

Thing is, the verdict Not Guilty is NOT the same as Innocent. Not Guilty only means that there wasn't enough evidence or, in the case with a murder, enough doubt cast that the jury couldn't come to a guilty verdict. It does NOT mean said person is innocent of a crime committed.

Innocent means no crime was committed outright.

Except there isn't a lack of evidence here. He's on video, shooting people. If what you Dems are saying is true, that he had no grounds to shoot back, then he'll be found guilty.

[Orange Joe]

That second link doesn't say what you think it does:



The husband didn't shoot...the thief did.

As for the first...the suspect is being charged with aggravated robbery.

In Texas Aggravated Robbery is defined as:

https://statutes.capitol.texas.gov/D...weapon%3B%20or



So it seems, at the very least, violent injury was implied.

Also, there's a bit of a tip-off in the article itself when it says that the woman is not being charged at this time... implying that, if circumstances were different, she could have been charged.

Basically we are still at mostly armed robberies.

[Endus]

Except there isn't a lack of evidence here. He's on video, shooting people. If what you Dems are saying is true, that he had no grounds to shoot back, then he'll be found guilty.

That presumes that trials are fair and just, and the USA has a long history demonstrating how often that's not the case.

[starstationprofm]

And self defense generally requires matching the threat level you're confronted with, not escalating to a higher level.

Ah cool so if I have a gun and 20 people come towards me to beat me up I'm supposed to throw hands and die.

Jesus Christ.

[Orange Joe]

Ah cool so if I have a gun and 20 people come towards me to beat me up I'm supposed to throw hands and die.

Jesus Christ.

People getting beat to death on the street like this is EXTREMELY rare. You would be more likely to win the lotto.

[starstationprofm]

That presumes that trials are fair and just, and the USA has a long history demonstrating how often that's not the case.

Of course it isn't fair and just. Left-aligned organisations have tried to suppress any support towards Rittenhouse. Gofundme shut down his donations.

- - - Updated - - -

People getting beat to death on the street like this is EXTREMELY rare. You would be more likely to win the lotto.

So what, should I just accept the broken bones and potentially being turned into a vegetable?