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

[Bodakane]

Then what was YOUR angle? And it is hard to imply anything else when you said "Kenosha police". At least mention some, squad, few, whatever. Otherwise it sounds like you implicate the whole force of being chummy with militias. Which is perfectly legal, if dumb and morally questionable.

I challenge you to read this again.

I mean if you want to quote where I made or even implied that accusation then you'd have a point, but since I didn't;t, you don't.

Again, we know, for a fact, there were Kenosha police on the scene who thanked and aided the white nationalist militia. That fucking happened, so I'm not sure what your angle is, but it isn't acute.

Now tell me where I said or even implied it was the whole fucking department.

[Aurrora]

Tossing something in someone's general direction, particularly when that something isn't remotely close to a weapon, yeah, that's not an "attack".

Nor is running at someone.

Those are simple facts. Try telling the cops you shot a guy because he ran towards you and missed you with a water balloon; that's the level of nonsense you're arguing.

And Rosenbaum was taunting armed militia dorks, while being unarmed. If you think he's the "instigator", there, you're the one being completely unreasonable. "Unarmed man is impolite to armed belligerents, clearly he's the problem." Come the fuck on.

Edit: For "grievous bodily harm", you need "if I don't immediately stop this guy, he's going to permanently disfigure/maim me" levels of violence. Just getting your ass beaten would not qualify. Even if that's what would've happened, which you have no way of knowing.

Lol, "Armed belligerents" because they put out an attempted arson of the gas station, how dare these fucking people defend property? Rosenbaum was an aggressor and a predator, he was out to commit violence and thought he could get away with no consequences due to of the cover of the riot. Fortunately consequences found him when he attacked what he thought was going to be an easy target.

[Edge-]

Warning video contains graphic content.
https://banned.video/watch?id=5f461c12838dfb0597d10755
At the 4:39 time mark you hear the command of "get out of the road", at the 4:45 mark it looks like he tries going up to the window to the cop car but you hear muffled commands. Still does not excuse him from fleeing the state. He could of easily just called 911, saying "hey I shot someone" and then gone into a police precinct to turn himself in.

"Get out of the road" is not telling him to "go away", and it wasn't even directed at him specifically.

The bolded is the thing we're pointing out. He made no serious attempt to turn himself in, instead fleeing the state to return home. Which is illegal, and evidence that he knew he had committed a crime and was attempting to avoid justice.

- - - Updated - - -

You just misread it, he was headed for the police and was assaulted while making his way to them, is that better for you?

Seems questionable at best given the video I've seen. Why was Rittenhouse separated from his militia buddies and mingling with protesters to begin with?

They first order him out of the way, then they order him out of the street, he goes to the side of the police cruiser still attempting to make contact and they order him away.

The order to clear the street was generic and not aimed at him specifically. They then drove past him, and he made no apparent subsequent attempts to turn himself in and provide a statement to the Kenosha police for his involvement in a multiple shooting. Instead, he fled the city and state, regardless of if it's next to the border of Illinois or not, and went home.

There's no defense for his actions here. He fled capture and prosecution for a crime, hence why he's being extradited.

[Endus]

Lol, "Armed belligerents" because they put out an attempted arson of the gas station, how dare these fucking people defend property? Rosenbaum was an aggressor and a predator, he was out to commit violence and thought he could get away with no consequences due to of the cover of the riot. Fortunately consequences found him when he attacked what he thought was going to be an easy target.

There you go, applauding the murder of an innocent man. Because you deemed him an "undesirable".

Yes, the militia were there to be belligerents. They armed themselves and went to a place they thought there might be violence. You're victim-blaming, to protect and defend a murderer.

[Voidwielder]

Yup, two homicides, none of this "premediated murder" that some clowns were trying to push here.

- - - Updated - - -

Attempting to avoid justice by *squints* going home 15 miles away.

[Edge-]

Yup, two homicides, none of this "premediated murder" that some clowns were trying to push here.

https://www.jsonline.com/story/news/...ld/5650698002/

Kyle Rittenhouse, 17, has been charged with first-degree intentional homicide and five other charges for the shootings of three people, two of whom died, in Kenosha on Tuesday night.

Rittenhouse was taken into custody Wednesday in Illinois, where he lives in Antioch southwest of Kenosha, and was awaiting extradition to Wisconsin on Thursday.

The charges were filed Thursday in Kenosha County Court in a complaint that details how Rittenhouse used an AR-15-style rifle to shoot and kill Joseph Rosenbaum, 36, and Anthony Huber, 26, and injure Gaige Grosskreutz, 26, shortly before midnight along Sheridan Road, where protesters went after being expelled from Civic Center Park during clashes with law enforcement.

https://docs.legis.wisconsin.gov/sta...tutes/940/I/01

It's first degree murder, dude. This is some bad gaslighting.

Rittenhouse also faces two counts of first-degree recklessly endangering safety and one count of possession of a dangerous weapon by a person under 18.

Additional charges. And those are just in Wisconsin. We haven't seen if or what federal authorities will charge him with.

- - - Updated - - -

Attempting to avoid justice by *squints* going home 15 miles away.

Shit, guess we've got a HUGE backlog of people convicted of fleeing the police/justice because they didn't travel further than 15 miles. CLEAR OUT THE PRISONS!

Edit:

In the first shooting, which occurred a minute-and-a-half earlier, he faces a first-degree reckless homicide charge. Rosenbaum was shot multiple times in the Car Source car lot at 63rd Street and Sheridan Road.

https://docs.legis.wisconsin.gov/sta...tutes/940/I/01

Also charged with this as well.

[Themius]

Yup, two homicides, none of this "premediated murder" that some clowns were trying to push here.

- - - Updated - - -

Attempting to avoid justice by *squints* going home 15 miles away.

He just so happened to wear gloves to protect himself from finger prints and gun shot residue. Wait so if someone kills someone but then flees less then 15 miles they didn't avoid justice????

- - - Updated - - -

https://www.jsonline.com/story/news/...ld/5650698002/



https://docs.legis.wisconsin.gov/sta...tutes/940/I/01

It's first degree murder, dude. This is some bad gaslighting.



Additional charges. And those are just in Wisconsin. We haven't seen if or what federal authorities will charge him with.

- - - Updated - - -



Shit, guess we've got a HUGE backlog of people convicted of fleeing the police/justice because they didn't travel further than 15 miles. CLEAR OUT THE PRISONS!

I did hear on the news recently on msnbc they noted multiple felonies.

[Voidwielder]

He was wearing gloves as a responsible citizen following COVID guidelines.
:-)

[Infracted]

[Edge-]

He was wearing gloves as a responsible citizen following COVID guidelines.
:-)

Where was his mask, bro? Medical advice is that masks are infinitely more important than gloves.

I mean, you could at least pretend you're not here trying to gaslight so obviously.

[eschatological]

Really? That's your defense? Rosenbaum wasn't attempting to attack him despite throwing something at him and then continuing to charge at him, and that even if he was maybe he was attacking in self defense at a fleeing person? Your bias is ridiculous. Rosenbaum was clearly seen earlier attempting to instigate fights.

A few perhaps-telling questions for you:
1) Protesters have been throwing things for a couple of months at cops. Does this give the cops justification to mow down all protesters? Or do they have to show restraint, and reasonable force?
2) When a Palestinian kid throws a rock at an Israeli soldier......is that justification for the Israeli soldier to kill him?

Honestly, I don't know how anyone who wasn't a ghoul by nature could answer yes to these questions, but I'm pretty unsure what your answers will be.

If you answer no, though, what is the difference between Rittenhouse and this protester who threw something (and didn't connect) at Rittenhouse, then got in his face verbally, and HOW WE EXPECT EVERY GODDAMN PERSON EVER TO REACT?

[Aurrora]

A few perhaps-telling questions for you:
1) Protesters have been throwing things for a couple of months at cops. Does this give the cops justification to mow down all protesters? Or do they have to show restraint, and reasonable force?
2) When a Palestinian kid throws a rock at an Israeli soldier......is that justification for the Israeli soldier to kill him?

Honestly, I don't know how anyone who wasn't a ghoul by nature could answer yes to these questions, but I'm pretty unsure what your answers will be.

If you answer no, though, what is the difference between Rittenhouse and this protester who threw something (and didn't connect) at Rittenhouse, then got in his face verbally, and HOW WE EXPECT EVERY GODDAMN PERSON EVER TO REACT?

1 & 2) If they throw something at a cop or soldier and then charge straight at them? Damn straight they're getting laid out, but probably not fatally. The reason you don't see that happening more often at protests is because the people throwing shit are hidden back in the crowd. Police also have a greater range of options in less-lethal tools so it's less likely that a protester attacking a cop in such a manner will be killed. Police and soldiers also work in groups to a single person attacking them isn't as great a threat as Rosenbaum was to Kyle. Joseph Rosenbaum was also a 36 year old man, not a child, so your attempt to draw a parallel with a Palestinian kid is a shameless strawman.

Kyle did use reasonable force, he attempted to retreat, Rosenbaum kept coming at him. He was under no obligation to allow Rosenbaum to begin hurting him before he decided Rosenbaum was going to cause enough damage to justify shooting him, and in all likelihood if he had allowed Rosenbaum to lay hands on him he would not have been the victor in their altercation.

Also: How often have you seen police use impact munitions in the past three months at these riots? Do you understand why you don't see civilians using impact munitions?

[Endus]

1 & 2) If they throw something at a cop or soldier and then charge straight at them? Damn straight they're getting laid out, but probably not fatally.

That doesn't happen in the real world, because you're completely wrong about how this works.

Kyle did use reasonable force, he attempted to retreat, Rosenbaum kept coming at him. He was under no obligation to allow Rosenbaum to begin hurting him before he decided Rosenbaum was going to cause enough damage to justify shooting him, and in all likelihood if he had allowed Rosenbaum to lay hands on him he would not have been the victor in their altercation.

He didn't have to let Rosenbaum injure him, no. He could have kept running.

He didn't. He chose to murder him instead.

This was not self defense. That's why he's been charged with murder. Because he murdered two people.

You've been shown that Wisconsin law does not support you.
The DAs don't agree with you, hence the charges.
On what grounds are you staking this position? It can't be the law, because that doesn't support you. So what other reason do you have to defend this murderer?

[Aurrora]

That doesn't happen in the real world, because you're completely wrong about how this works.

You're telling me I won't be able to find any instances of someone charging at police and being taken down with either lethal or non-lethal methods?
Could you be any more disingenuous?

He didn't have to let Rosenbaum injure him, no. He could have kept running.

He didn't. He chose to murder him instead.

This was not self defense. That's why he's been charged with murder. Because he murdered two people.

You've been shown that Wisconsin law does not support you.
The DAs don't agree with you, hence the charges.
On what grounds are you staking this position? It can't be the law, because that doesn't support you. So what other reason do you have to defend this murderer?

Also it appears Kyle stopped and turned around because someone in the crowd pursuing him fired a handgun. You can hear and see the shot in videos prior to him turning around. At this point his momentum was lost and Rosenbaum was still charging him, he could not have escaped.

[Endus]

You're telling me I won't be able to find any instances of someone charging at police and being taken down with either lethal or non-lethal methods?
Could you be any more disingenuous?

No.

I'm expecting you to show me a case of a legitimate and uncontested lethal shooting of someone who simply ran towards officers while unarmed.

Not "lethal or non-lethal". The entire point here is that Rittenhouse resorted to lethal force when there was no justifiable threat that would warrant it.

Also it appears Kyle stopped and turned around because someone in the crowd pursuing him fired a handgun. You can hear and see the shot in videos prior to him turning around. At this point his momentum was lost and Rosenbaum was still charging him, he could not have escaped.

Doesn't matter. Still murder to shoot the guy. You keep bringing up completely irrelevant details as if they change anything.

[Voidwielder]

"No you see chasing down someone and attempting to shoot them as they try to flee is anti fascist - some of you here.

[Aurrora]

No.

I'm expecting you to show me a case of a legitimate and uncontested lethal shooting of someone who simply ran towards officers while unarmed.

Not "lethal or non-lethal". The entire point here is that Rittenhouse resorted to lethal force when there was no justifiable threat that would warrant it.

And as I've pointed out the options for less-lethal use for civilians is limited compared to what police have available to them, not only that but the requirement to use less-lethal force for a civilian is the same as the requirement for lethal force. So you won't see civilians using impact munitions like the police do for this reason.

Doesn't matter. Still murder to shoot the guy. You keep bringing up completely irrelevant details as if they change anything.

Not if he was attempting to cause great bodily harm which any reasonable person will believe he was. Kyle turned around to assess where the shot was coming from and found Rosenbaum charging him. It's not a fight he likely could have won, he was justified.

[eschatological]

And as I've pointed out the options for less-lethal use for civilians is limited compared to what police have available to them, not only that but the requirement to use less-lethal force for a civilian is the same as the requirement for lethal force. So you won't see civilians using impact munitions like the police do for this reason.



Not if he was attempting to cause great bodily harm which any reasonable person will believe he was. Kyle turned around to assess where the shot was coming from and found Rosenbaum charging him. It's not a fight he likely could have won, he was justified.

The less lethal option was to stay home. It wasn't his fight, he wasn't asked there, he was there illegally, and he committed multiple crimes while there.

The first thing they teach you in gun safety is to always assume your gun is loaded. The second is don't pull the trigger if you're not ready to kill whatever you're aiming at.

[Aurrora]

The less lethal option was to stay home. It wasn't his fight, he wasn't asked there, he was there illegally, and he committed multiple crimes while there.

The first thing they teach you in gun safety is to always assume your gun is loaded. The second is don't pull the trigger if you're not ready to kill whatever you're aiming at.

......And?

He wasn't obligated to stay at him.

He was justified in killing what he aimed at.

[Voidwielder]

The less lethal option was to stay home. It wasn't his fight, he wasn't asked there, he was there illegally, and he committed multiple crimes while there.

The first thing they teach you in gun safety is to always assume your gun is loaded. The second is don't pull the trigger if you're not ready to kill whatever you're aiming at.

Same applies to the arsonists and the guy who came with the gun (and now apparently regrets not killing the kid).

"Shoot me, n-word" ought to be inscribed on his gravestone.

It is funny how all three randoms the kid shot are felons of varying degrees. Quite the gang the ACAB crowd manages to recruit. Divine intervention?
[Infraction]

[Endus]

And as I've pointed out the options for less-lethal use for civilians is limited compared to what police have available to them, not only that but the requirement to use less-lethal force for a civilian is the same as the requirement for lethal force. So you won't see civilians using impact munitions like the police do for this reason.

If you don't have a non-lethal force option, when confronted by a threat that does not rise to a threat of death or grievous bodily harm, you do not have a use-of-force option. Period. You do not get to default to lethal force.

And that's a statement I make which is internally ridiculous, because the fact is that you do always have less-than-lethal options for self defense. Always.

Also, that middle bit, where you talk about the requirements for lethal or non-lethal force being the same "for a civilian"; that's just wrong. Lethal force requires a significantly more extreme level of threat to be justified.

Not if he was attempting to cause great bodily harm which any reasonable person will believe he was.

This is just obviously false.

That term has a specific meaning under the law. If Rosenbaum was going to smack Rittenhouse around a bunch and leave him beaten and bruised, that is not "great bodily harm" under the legal description of that term. You have absolutely no basis for claiming Rosenbaum even posed that level of threat, let alone a greater one.

Kyle turned around to assess where the shot was coming from and found Rosenbaum charging him. It's not a fight he likely could have won, he was justified.

"I'm gonna lose a fight" is not grounds for lethal force.

Not that this was even a fight.

Where the hell are you getting this bullshit? It's absolutely fucking ridiculous and does not stem from any legal understanding whatsoever. It's directly contradicted by the law I've already cited. Stop making up complete nonsense to defend a multiple murderer.