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

[Adamas102]

You are not a mindreader.

No one is, but if you don’t understand how establishing intent is an important part of the legal proceedings then maybe you should excuse yourself from this thread and any others that have to do with trials.

[Elegiac]

No one is, but if you don’t understand how establishing intent is an important part of the legal proceedings then maybe you should excuse yourself from this thread and any others that have to do with trials.

I mean, they seem to be insisting Rittenhouse is a mind-reader since they've constantly been bringing up Rosenbaum's history when it has fuck all to do with the situation.

It's mildly hilarious how they keep trotting out the same excuses here as they do every time a cop murders someone. The agenda is so transparent you could use it for window glass.

[Zeth Hawkins]

Say you haven't read the thread without saying you haven't read the thread.

And no; I'd prefer if Rittenhouse didn't cross state lines to participate in an uninvited vigilante circus at all. That he did so is what negates any claim of self-defense regardless of what a biased court says. Rofl.

The way y'all are shilling for a murderer says a lot about you.

Crossing state lines has no impact on someone's ability to practice self-defense where needed. This is such a wild, baseless take.

And @rrayy is right, whether you agree with him or not. The facts are there. Rosenbaum threatened Kyle, pursued him, and had possession of Kyle's gun when Kyle shot. Huber hit Kyle in the head with his skateboard while Kyle was prone on the ground, then grabbed the gun when he was shot. Gaige admitted Kyle only shot him when he pointed his gun at, and advanced upon, Kyle.

I'm not happy two people died, and Gaige lost 90% of his bicep, before anyone posits that idea. This whole event was avoidable. Terrible decisions made all-around.

[The Oblivion]

Why did anyone "attack" him then? If all he did was go to a protest, and nothing else, why would anyone attack him? Do you randomly go up to people for no reason and start to attack them?

Between him going to that protest and people "attacking" him, something happened. We don't know what, but we are damn sure that something happened. Because people wouldn't suddenly start something with anybody for no reason, and they'd have to have a damn good reason if the person involved is openly carrying a firearm. So stop pretending this is clear cut that Rittenhouse is blameless. We might not know exactly what he did to start this chain of events, but we know for damn certain he did something.

And we know from the evidence that the judge wouldn't allow in the trial that he'd already stated that he WANTED to shoot protestors. It doesn't take a leap of imagination to suppose that he was doing something designed to give himself the opportunity to get his wish.

there is no evidence or proof he did ANYTHING before being attacked. the video was not allowed because there is no PROOF OR EVIDENCE that kyle is the one in it. what is certain, with evidence, video, testimony, is that kyle was attacked first. it is a fact that he tried to flee while being attacked, and it was fact that he defended himself from those violent attackers as his last resort.

there are plenty of insane people at these riots that attack others without cause. they are seeking violence and destruction. they are rioters after all, committing additional crime is certainly something they do.

[DKjaigen]

Perhaps you should get a new fallacy besides whataboutism.

Hint: Saying "it's a dangerous situation" just supports the notion that a reasonable person would not have done what Rittenhouse did.

That also goes for the 3 morons that kyle shot. Had they not come to the riot they would not have died. However the blame falls on them. Kyle is 17 and Rosenbaum is an adult in his 30's so where the other muppets. They should have known better then to participate in a riot

[XDurionX]

Uh, no, they're not. Unless you're being narrowly specific on your use of the word "worse".

I guess you aren't aware that most people fighting in wars aren't even regular soldiers to begin with.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_o...rmed_conflicts

[Elegiac]

Crossing state lines has no impact on someone's ability to practice self-defense where needed.

It does when you're doing so to participate in an unasked for vigilante action, i.e. wilfully putting yourself in a dangerous situation.

[The Oblivion]

It does. Wilfully putting yourself into a dangerous situation and aggravating the situation by, say, brandishing a firearm makes it not self-defense.

it does not. again, if i walk into a high crime neighborhood and am attacked, i can still defend myself. even though i know its a dangerous place. i do not lose rights because criminals commit crimes.

[Elegiac]

That also goes for the 3 morons that kyle shot. Had they not come to the riot they would not have died.

Which is irrelevant since none of them are trying to claim "self-defense" for murdering three people.

Again: can you get a new fallacy besides whataboutism? Rofl.

[Kathandira]

If we are going back to causes.

Let's be real here. There were national protests going on at the time. Tensions across each state were very high. The reason for the riots was white people with authority were killing people of color. So there were mass gatherings of people who were not pleased with white people carrying guns.

So what did a group of white people with guns do? Show up to protect the area. That alone is the stupidest shit you can possibly do. Looking the part of the very people the protests were against is (maybe not lawfully, but rationally) an act of instigation. And again, completely batshit stupid.

[The Oblivion]

It does when you're doing so to participate in an unasked for vigilante action, i.e. wilfully putting yourself in a dangerous situation.

legally it does not. your feelings dont change law or reality.

[Elegiac]

it does not. again, if i walk into a high crime neighborhood and am attacked, i can still defend myself

Bzzzzt. Shitty analogy is shitty.

There's a difference between "going to a high crime neighborhood" and "going an active protest, armed, and with intent to participate in an unasked-for vigilante action that you know will incite a response from said protesters".

[rrayy]

So if a burglar breaks into your house, and you pull a gun on him, and then he shoots you, he should be in the clear because he was defending himself against you?

no because that brings a different law into play. That is the law that says you have the right to defend yourself inside your home. the home intruder doesn't get self defense because he committed a crime by breaking into the house in the first place.

[Elegiac]

legally it does not.

And I don't particularly care since the law in this country is tailored to protect conservatives, not deliver actual justice.

You seem not to grasp what "systemic judicial bias" means. Maybe workshop that a bit.

[The Oblivion]

If we are going back to causes.

Let's be real here. There were national protests going on at the time. Tensions across each state were very high. The reason for the riots was white people with authority were killing people of color. So there were mass gatherings of people who were not pleased with white people carrying guns.

So what did a group of white people with guns do? Show up to protect the area. That alone is the stupidest shit you can possibly do. Looking the part of the very people the protests were against is (maybe not lawfully, but rationally) an act of instigation. And again, completely batshit stupid.

just because a group of peoples feelings are hurt does not give them the right to riot, destroy property, and assault people. however KNOWING a group of criminals are coming to do harm, does give you plenty of reason to be prepared to defend your property and life.

[Kronik85]

Gorsskreutz aimed his pistol at Rittenhouse's face AFTER he ran down Rittenhosue. It does not matter that he shot Rosenbaum. You pull a pistol on someone, that someone has a right to defend themselves.

DUDE! Can you stop fucking this up please. Grosskreutz pulling a gun and then being shot THROUGH Huber does not justify Rittenhouse killing Rosenbaum minutes before either was on the scene unless Rittenhouse is a psychic or experiences time in a non linear fashion (which bizarrely the defence didn't lean into or bring up).

You don't need to make shit up for Rittenhouse to have won this case.

[The Oblivion]

Bzzzzt. Shitty analogy is shitty.

There's a difference between "a high crime neighborhood" and "an active protest, armed, and with intent to participate in an unasked-for vigilante action that you know will incite a response from said protesters".

there is no difference actually, again, thats just your own sensibilities and not reality. reality is, kyle was minding his own business, harming no one, and was attacked,

[rrayy]

If we are going back to causes.

Let's be real here. There were national protests going on at the time. Tensions across each state were very high. The reason for the riots was white people with authority were killing people of color. So there were mass gatherings of people who were not pleased with white people carrying guns.

So what did a group of white people with guns do? Show up to protect the area. That alone is the stupidest shit you can possibly do. Looking the part of the very people the protests were against is (maybe not lawfully, but rationally) an act of instigation. And again, completely batshit stupid.

You forgot to incuklde:


People of all races looting and rioting including black people. Stop trying to make it look like Black people were completely innocent and only whites were guilty. There were guilty people of all races.

[Kathandira]

no because that brings a different law into play. That is the law that says you have the right to defend yourself inside your home. the home intruder doesn't get self defense because he committed a crime by breaking into the house in the first place.

I would say that for sure. We do have the famous case of the person who fell in a home he broke into, and was injured. He sued and won. Depends on the state of course though as each have different laws around these things.

for example, if Rittenhouse was in NJ and walking the streets with an AR strapped to his chest, that alone would be a criminal offense with no defense.

[Elegiac]

however KNOWING a group of criminals are coming to do harm, does give you plenty of reason to be prepared to defend your property and life

Which totally squares with needing to cross state lines to do so, and not being invited by the actual property owners, to boot.