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

[Edge-]

I mean, he also fled the scene and the State knowing he'd killed people, which demonstrates clear mens rea. Which makes all this talk of "self defense" pretty blatantly untrue, when not even Kyle thought he'd acted within the law.

Especially considering that he was apparently some kind of police cadet and idolized/revered the police, meaning that he'd more than likely know that he should have turned himself into police either on the streets or at the station and surrendered his weapon to provide a statement for the investigation.

[Felya]

I'm describing a " I'm being attacked and would rather not die mindset" it isn't inherently criminal.

I can't excuse him running from the law he should of reported it and turned himself in till a investigation was performed but I would need to know why he ran. Was it guilt or simple fear?

Fear of what? Repercussions for his guilt?

[Edge-]

There isn't any evidence at this point at best there is hearsay.

So there's not even witness statements like what I already linked above backing up the claim that Rosenbaum tried to grab Rittenhouse's gun right before he was shot?

Again, you're slinging bad misinformation, as are all the Rittenhouse defenders. Either straight up debunked lies like the "He called 911!" or unsupported rumors that have no evidence behind them, not even witness statements on a criminal complaint.

[Shalcker]

Come the fuck on.

Rittenhouse had already been interviewed by McGinnis, directly. There's no way he thought McGinnis was trying to hurt him.

I said "at least two"; there were more not that far behind.

Also, you're somehow assuming he was calmly looking at who exactly is chasing him in detail and not just running as fast as he can (which, given his overall build, is probably not that fast, and not that far).

Because they aren't seeing that in the videos.

They plainly do though.

When people say they see a unicorn in a video if they squint and turn their head sideways, all I have to do is point out there's no unicorn. It's on them to prove it.

Prove what exactly? They see it as they see it and come to conclusions from that - possibly prompted by some connect-the-dots exploratory videos of event.

It's on you to provide more compelling explanation of events from what is seen and known if you want to sway any opinions.

As for "not providing alternative analysis", what the hell do you think my posts are? They are alternative analysis. So you're just lying about shit, for no reason.

You're not saying what you're seeing there yourself, you just keep saying "it isn't what you're saying you are seeing".

[Cerilis]

And here we go again... another round of 10 pages arguing with trolls.

[Mayhem]

I'm describing a " I'm being attacked and would rather not die mindset" it isn't inherently criminal.

Yeah, we know, you're describing fan fiction, not reality.

[Krakan]

So there's not even witness statements like what I already linked above backing up the claim that Rosenbaum tried to grab Rittenhouse's gun right before he was shot?

Again, you're slinging bad misinformation, as are all the Rittenhouse defenders. Either straight up debunked lies like the "He called 911!" or unsupported rumors that have no evidence behind them, not even witness statements on a criminal complaint.

It's why I don't want to play the eye witness game and didn't bring it up till you did. I trust the video because it's something I can see. I have repeatedly said I don't know what occured before hand.

[Endus]

I'm describing a " I'm being attacked and would rather not die mindset" it isn't inherently criminal.

I can't excuse him running from the law he should of reported it and turned himself in till a investigation was performed but I would need to know why he ran. Was it guilt or simple fear?

What "fear"? He'd already left the scene and the police were keeping protesters from crossing their lines.

The only "fear" he could have reasonably had at that point was fear of prosecution. Which, again, is mens rea.


And again; if you're pre-emptively shooting an assaulter "just in case", without them posing an imminent threat of death or great bodily harm, you're a murderer. If you're in a bar, and some guy sucker punches you for macking on his girl and pulls back to take another swing at you, and you shoot him, that's murder. Not self defense.

[Cizr]

While the cops just sat 20 feet away? I don't think pushing a dumpster, even if it's on a fire a bit, a few feet (if that's even the dude, it's dark as fuck) is qualified as "rioting" in any jurisdiction in the US.

I'm not going to uncritically believe snippets edited together by a far-right activist, by the looks of his YT page, so I'd be curious to see all the raw video available rather than just the context he presents.

I mean, remember that time Rittenhouse and his buddies were caught on camera sucker punching a girl? That was fun too.

Why are you attacking author of the video? What makes you even think that he is far right ? Because he is pro gun and disagrees that Kyle murdered someone?

That video with Rittenhouse looks more like he was defending his girl friend. What are you even trying to say with this? Is this some gotcha "look at what Kyle did so he is guilty of this too" ? Do you know what the men who were killed did?

[Bdatik]

And here we go again... another round of 10 pages arguing with trolls.

Seriously, I don't understand why the same people keep arguing with trolls. It makes them look really stupid at this point.

[Endus]

Also, you're somehow assuming he was calmly looking at who exactly is chasing him in detail and not just running as fast as he can (which, given his overall build, is probably not that fast, and not that far).

Describing someone panicking and not grasping the situation is, again, a description of motive and intent, not a legal defense.

It's on you to provide more compelling explanation of events from what is seen and known if you want to sway any opinions.

My goal is to debunk disinformation efforts. Those pushing disinformation aren't going to listen to reason, no matter how well-stated, and I'm not going to waste my breath making the effort.

You're not saying what you're seeing there yourself, you just keep saying "it isn't what you're saying you are seeing".

I think the videos speak for themselves, frankly. I don't have to provide some grand re-interpretation of those feeds to try and re-imagine those facts in some imaginary light that I've made up for myself; they tell the story just fine all by themselves, without me needing to reframe anything.

That's sort of the point.

[Edge-]

Why are you attacking author of the video? What makes you even think that he is far right ? Because he is pro gun and disagrees that Kyle murdered someone?

Because he made a video pearl clutching about Kamala Harris taking guns. That's bog-standard fringe right dog whistling.

That video with Rittenhouse looks more like he was defending his girl friend. What are you even trying to say with this? Is this some gotcha "look at what Kyle did so he is guilty of this too" ? Do you know what the men who were killed did?

Hey, if we're going to use the prior actions of his victims to justify their murder, we can use the prior actions of Rittenhouse to justify him as a murderer.

[JohnBrown1917]

And here we go again... another round of 10 pages arguing with trolls.

Fascists you mean? They are serious about this.

[BlackDruid96]

Man, imagine all the heartache and sorrow and violence that could have been avoided had a minor not had an illegal weapon after traveling to another state to "defend property" that wasn't his.

I agree he shouldn't have been there, but it still doesn't excuse a grown man charging at a armed teenager to commit violence.

- - - Updated - - -

Then you have no comprehension of what "self defense" actually means, in terms of a legal defense.

If I pre-emptively shoot everyone who rings my doorbell, "just in case", that's "self defense". I am defending myself from a potential threat. Is that a legally justifiable form of self defence, that would oblige a jury to rule that my homicides were justified, just for ringing my doorbell? Obviously not.

That's what happens here. We have evidence that Rosenbaum was running towards Kyle, and tossed a plastic bag at him. None of that presents a threat of imminent death or great bodily harm (which itself has a legal definition, and doesn't just mean "I got beat up real bad and needed a couple stitches".) Self defense, in Wisconsin, is only justifiable if you use reasonable force, and lethal force in self defense is not justified outside of that scope.

Rittenhouse was not justified to shoot Rosenbaum. And everything after that point cannot be construed as self defense, because he was "defending" himself from bystanders trying to stop an active shooter. It doesn't even matter if his shooting of Rosenbaum is deemed justified through some horseshit manipulation of the law; the second shooting cannot be deemed justifiable, since the videos make it excruciatingly clear that they were trying to take down an active shooter who had already shot someone. Would you argue that a school shooter was acting in "self defense" for shooting teachers trying to tackle them to the ground and wrestle the gun away from them? Because that's the same absolutely galling and abusive argument you're making for the second two shootings by Rittenhouse. Exactly the same.

Edit: Actually, hell, since the response thus far has been "but this wasn't a school", which misses the fucking point, put the shooting in a mall. You're arguing the shooter is legally justified to shoot anyone trying to stop them, and can't be charged with murder for doing so. It's asinine.

- - - Updated - - -



You're describing motive, not a legal defense, you realize.

The gun there isn't anywhere close to Rosenbaum, and there's no way Rittenhouse legitimately thought Rosenbaum was shooting at him. He panicked and fired. That's what makes it murder. All the reasons you can come up with do not defend that decision; they describe the motive, nothing more.

Did you watch the video angle of the Rosenbaum chasing Kyle before Kyle turned around and shot him?

- - - Updated - - -

I am pretty sure you can't do that.

I mean, it's right out of a south park episode:

" As they arrive, Jimbo explains to the boys how to hunt. Whenever they see a creature, they shoot it after yelling, "It's coming right for us!", so they can claim the shooting was in self-defense. Stan does not have the proper temperament to enjoy hunting, and finds himself unable to shoot a living target."

I guess we will see what the jury thinks when all the evidence is shown, I can only judge based on what I saw which was a man throwing an object at Kyle and charging at him as Kyle ran away, then Kyle turned around and shot him.

[Endus]

I agree he shouldn't have been there, but it still doesn't excuse a grown man charging at a armed teenager to commit violence.

- - - Updated - - -

Did you watch the video angle of the Rosenbaum chasing Kyle before Kyle turned around and shot him?

Yep.

Still murder.

It doesn't even matter if Rosenbaum had cause to chase Rittenhouse. What he was doing did not justify Rittenhouses' use of lethal force against him.

Edit: To be more clear, it wouldn't matter if Rosenbaum had said he was gonna beat Rittenhouse bloody.
It wouldn't matter if Rosenbaum had actually sucker-punched Rittenhouse.

Whether this was murder does not rely on Rosenbaum being in the right. It only relies upon whether there was an imminent threat of death or great bodily harm from Rosenbaum. That does not exist, and thus Rittenhouse's use of force was unlawful.

[Bodakane]

I agree he shouldn't have been there, but it still doesn't excuse a grown man charging at a armed teenager to commit violence.

- - - Updated - - -



Did you watch the video angle of the Rosenbaum chasing Kyle before Kyle turned around and shot him?

- - - Updated - - -



I guess we will see what the jury thinks when all the evidence is shown, I can only judge based on what I saw which was a man throwing an object at Kyle and charging at him as Kyle ran away, then Kyle turned around and shot him.

Doesn't matter, you are not allowed to put yourself into that situation, help stoke the flames of violence and then claim self defense. Your argument is literally no different than running into a store with a machete and when the clerk comes to remove you from the store claiming self defense if you chop him up.

[BlackDruid96]

Yep.

Still murder.

It doesn't even matter if Rosenbaum had cause to chase Rittenhouse. What he was doing did not justify Rittenhouses' use of lethal force against him.

Edit: To be more clear, it wouldn't matter if Rosenbaum had said he was gonna beat Rittenhouse bloody.
It wouldn't matter if Rosenbaum had actually sucker-punched Rittenhouse.

Whether this was murder does not rely on Rosenbaum being in the right. It only relies upon whether there was an imminent threat of death or great bodily harm from Rosenbaum. That does not exist, and thus Rittenhouse's use of force was unlawful.

If you have a weapon and someone charges at you, what would you have done?

[Elegiac]

I'm describing a " I'm being attacked and would rather not die mindset" it isn't inherently criminal.

I can't excuse him running from the law he should of reported it and turned himself in till a investigation was performed but I would need to know why he ran. Was it guilt or simple fear?

You’ve complained at other people in this thread for trying to speculate on people’s motivations, so why do you need to know this? Lol.

This is why your arguments get called bad faith: you aren’t interested in the truth, you’re interested in pushing a particular agenda and will freely warp the narrative or outright contradict previous arguments. Freely making assumptions about Rosenbaum while criticising people for doing the same about Lil Y’all Qaeda, and then a triple backtrack by now claiming the latter’s mindset is now suddenly important because the facts don't support your version of the narrative.

Clownery, lol.

[BlackDruid96]

Doesn't matter, you are not allowed to put yourself into that situation, help stoke the flames of violence and then claim self defense. Your argument is literally no different than running into a store with a machete and when the clerk comes to remove you from the store claiming self defense if you chop him up.

What situation did he put himself in, standing in a parking lot armed? Does that warrant violence against him? I agree he shouldn't have been there but that doesn't mean a grown man should have tried to charge an armed kid.

[Elegiac]

If you have a weapon and someone charges at you, what would you have done?

I like how the “facts over feels” crowd suddenly becomes immensely interested in feels when the facts don’t support them.

The question is a non sequitur. It does not matter what anyone else would have done because the act that got done is objectively bad.

But because y’all can’t dispute that we get nihilist arguments to the effect of ‘nyeh well humans are super shitty you’re not better than anyone else’ as if that somehow makes a difference.