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

[Soliloque]

And I am pretty sure there was an unedited video where you can hear insult when Rittenhouse arrives in the parking lot (not that it changes anything, someone pursuing you is enough to be felt threatened.

Agreed with this.
Again, look at that portland trump supporter who got chased and executed.

[Endus]

This doesn't make any sense. The act of attacking someone and trying to grab by force a lethal weapon is what makes the whole thing a lethal threat, not the act of carrying the weapon around the street.
It's the aggression + the clear intent of taking hold of a lethal weapon that makes the aggressor a lethal threat.
You've already proved yourself to be violent, and now trying to take hold of a weapon that escalates and multiplies your violence. You are the threat, not the carrier of the weapon.

Even if we completely ignore everything that occurred according to eyewitness testimony from before the first video, which showed Rosenbaum chasing after Rittenhouse, your position here is nonsensical and would not hold up under legal scrutiny.*

If Rosenbaum taking the weapon from Rittenhouse would make Rosenbaum a lethal threat, then Rittenhouse himself was already presenting that same threat to Rosenbaum, prior. Which would, in turn, justify Rosenbaum's assault. It's an argument that circularly defeats itself, by its own internal failures of logic.

It would be the same as me carrying a kitchen knife around the street in my pocket minding my own business and then someone coming at me, throwing me down, seeing the knife and then trying to take said knife by force... and then claiming it's my fault for carrying the knife. That I am the threat.

If someone shoved you in the street, saw you pull a knife, and tried to get the knife away from you, and you stabbed them 4 times and killed them, you'd have committed murder.

And it's your internal logic here that is trying to equate "having a weapon" with "posing a lethal threat". That's why you're arguing that the person wrestling your knife away from you could lawfully be killed; because them having the weapon means they're a lethal threat. That's your whole argument. That's not my argument, or anyone else's, pointing out that Rittenhouse committed murder. He didn't commit murder "because he had a gun", he committed murder for escalating the proportionality of violence way beyond what could be deemed reasonable in those circumstances, even if we ignore eyewitness testimony from before the video footage took place.*

* And now, for both those asterisks, I'll again remind you that we do have that eyewitness testimony, which shows Rittenhouse acting dangerously in such a way that would justify someone, like Rosenbaum, deciding that disarming the threat was reasonable and justified. Which renders his actions completely legally defensible, and everything Rittenhouse did completely not defensible.

** While I didn't have a double-asterisk in there, I'll again repeat that fleeing the scene is generally treated as mens rea, after the fact, all by itself. If you accidentally hit someone with your car, and then flee the scene and leave them to die, you've committed vehicular homicide and you'll be convicted of manslaughter, where if you had called the police and tried to help them, the circumstances of the accident may have cleared you of responsibility. Just fleeing the scene by itself can shift the legal framing. And Rittenhouse fled the scene, not turning himself in to the police nor calling the police.

[Edge-]

There was a video from NY times when you can see the flame from the muzzle, and it is not that far from them.

I am aware. But you claimed the shooter fired at Rittenhouse, which is a claim that I haven't seen a single shred of evidence backing up.

And a plastic bottle full of water to the face can be deadly if thrown with enough force (and even more if it is frozen, makes great blunt weapon).

And if the water bottle was actually a can of soup or a shrapnel bomb it would be even more deadly! You're just making shit up here to justify treating a bag thrown that landed nowhere near him and was thrown well before Rittenhouse turned and shot Rosenbaum. So there's no reasonable claim he was responding to what he viewed to be a threatening plastic bag thrown at him.

He was cornered in the sens that he could not outrun his pursuer, and that pursuer was physically stronger than he is.

That's not what cornered means. Cornered means he has no method of escape. He did, he chose to shoot instead.

And I am pretty sure there was an unedited video where you can hear insult when Rittenhouse arrives in the parking lot (not that it changes anything, someone pursuing you is enough to be felt threatened.

The two exchanged words earlier in the night, but I fail to see what relevance him shouting at Rittenhouse to "shoot him" would have other than Rittenhouse somehow thinking that it's justification to actually shoot him. Which it's not.

[Soliloque]

Yes, that is wrong. Those three people attacked him specifically because he had already killed someone.

Wait, if the guy killed 2 people and injured a third, and all those were the three who attacked him... who is this first person he killed?
Shouldn't the count be 4 then?

Also I heard that first person pointed a gun at him as well, is that true?

[Endus]

And a plastic bottle full of water to the face can be deadly if thrown with enough force (and even more if it is frozen, makes great blunt weapon).

Are you arguing that I can shoot anyone who tosses a water bottle anywhere near me?

Because if yes, you're nuts. That's insane.

And if no, then even you know this shit's ridiculous and don't believe it for one second.

[Edge-]

Wait, if the guy killed 2 people and injured a third, and all those were the three who attacked him... who is this first person he killed?
Shouldn't the count be 4 then?

Also I heard that first person pointed a gun at him as well, is that true?

He shot at a fourth person while he was on the ground and missed them. Have you not watched any of the videos? Because this makes me think you haven't watched any of the videos.

And Rosenbaum was unarmed, so you're repeating bad information from elsewhere.

[BlackDruid96]

Tthe "ANTIFA COMMANDER" has been arrested so everything is fine now.

https://www.wbay.com/2020/08/31/neen...ies-to-antifa/

Apparently, groups of white men armed with sticks, baseball bats, and helmets are more dangerous in the eyes of cops than groups of white men armed with guns which is...a bit weird but whatever.



But why would the officer pull up?

Military-style gear is not illegal, and is worn by PATRIOTS on the right.
Metal helmets aren't illegal either, and are often warn by PATRIOTS on the alt-right.
The Antifa flag is no more violent, deadly, or threatening than the Confederate flag, which is often carried by PATRIOTS on the right.

So the only difference was they had bats, which are decidedly less dangerous and less of a threat than a rifle.

And the "ANTIFA COMMANDER" that got picked up was, unsurprisingly, a 23 year old dude who immediately went into the fetal position because of course this chucklefuck would.

I'm just impressed that law enforcement seem to take people armed with flags not waved during a civil war and with melee weapons and personal protection, while they are usually quite gracious towards heavily armed vigilante yahoo's with multiple firearms on their person.

Almost like there's this weird cultural/political double standard or some shit. WHICH IS WEIRD, RIGHT?!

Maybe it was from the part you left out?

“An unlawful assembly is three or more people who gather in such a manner where property damage, or personal injury is likely to occur. We determined this was happening on Washington Street. What was happening was a large group of people had blocked traffic on the street had engaged in throwing a bottle at somebody, were pulling up manhole covers off the street and were blocking traffic,” said Chief Smith.

[DarkTZeratul]

Wait, if the guy killed 2 people and injured a third, and all those were the three who attacked him... who is this first person he killed?
Shouldn't the count be 4 then?

Of those three people, he killed one and maimed another. He shot at, but missed, the third. The first person was someone who tried to disarm him earlier, presumably because he was threateningly waving a gun at people and they were rightfully scared that he would shoot someone. Which he did.

Also I heard that first person pointed a gun at him as well, is that true?

The guy who got shot in the arm had a gun. Which was, again, after Rittenhouse had already killed at least one person.

[Endus]

Wait, if the guy killed 2 people and injured a third, and all those were the three who attacked him... who is this first person he killed?
Shouldn't the count be 4 then?

Rosenbaum chased Rittenhouse after Rittenhouse put bystanders at risk. Rittenhouse shot Rosenbaum for this.

Then, a bunch of bystanders tried to stop the active shooter. That's when Rittenhouse shot and killed one of them, and shot and maimed a second.

Also I heard that first person pointed a gun at him as well, is that true?

Rosenbaum was unarmed. Wherever you "heard" that, they were liars and you should question your ability to critically assess sources.

[Specialka]

I am aware. But you claimed the shooter fired at Rittenhouse, which is a claim that I haven't seen a single shred of evidence backing up.



And if the water bottle was actually a can of soup or a shrapnel bomb it would be even more deadly! You're just making shit up here to justify treating a bag thrown that landed nowhere near him and was thrown well before Rittenhouse turned and shot Rosenbaum. So there's no reasonable claim he was responding to what he viewed to be a threatening plastic bag thrown at him.



That's not what cornered means. Cornered means he has no method of escape. He did, he chose to shoot instead.



The two exchanged words earlier in the night, but I fail to see what relevance him shouting at Rittenhouse to "shoot him" would have other than Rittenhouse somehow thinking that it's justification to actually shoot him. Which it's not.

Stop lying, I said firing in their general direction.

When you can't outrun your opponent, you are cornered as you can't escape him. Any animal knows that.

And shouting + chasing him can be seen as an agressive behavior.

[jonnysensible]

And a plastic bottle full of water to the face can be deadly if thrown with enough force (and even more if it is frozen, makes great blunt weapon).

hahahahhahahahahaahahaha im looking forward to seeing pictures of kyle in prison wearing a binbag miniskirt and being used as currency if thats the defense.

[Specialka]

Are you arguing that I can shoot anyone who tosses a water bottle anywhere near me?

Because if yes, you're nuts. That's insane.

And if no, then even you know this shit's ridiculous and don't believe it for one second.

You are dense, it is becoming ridiculous.

It is the culmination of chasing + shouting + throwing objects at him + cornering him as he could not outrun him.

[Edge-]

Stop lying, I said firing in their general direction.

Did he? We know there was a gunshot, but I don't know if we know the direction it was shot.

When you can't outrun your opponent, you are cornered as you can't escape him. Any animal knows that.

That's not being cornered, that's being outrun. And had he not turned around to shoot Rosenbaum, he very likely could have outrun him. Or is a spry 17 year old slower than a much larger 36 year old?

And shouting + chasing him can be seen as an agressive behavior.

Aggressive, sure! Deadly threat? Not in the slightest.

Unless we can now murder anyone we feel is being "aggressive" and call it self defense?

[Soliloque]

And it's your internal logic here that is trying to equate "having a weapon" with "posing a lethal threat".

No it's not.
My internal logic is that an act of aggression + the followup of trying to obtain a lethal weapon is what makes the person a lethal threat.
Not the mere having a weapon.

[Endus]

You are dense, it is becoming ridiculous.

It is the culmination of chasing + shouting + throwing objects at him + cornering him as he could not outrun him.

And none of that builds up to a situation where Rittenhouse could reasonable believe he was facing threat of imminent death or great bodily harm.

If we ignore the lead-up, again, what you describe would have justified Rittenhouse punching Rosenbaum, maybe. Nothing more. Proportionality of response is a legal expectation in self defense. If you escalate, you're no longer acting in self defense, but committing murder.

[Belize]

Why are we debating ban evaders?

[Endus]

No it's not.
My internal logic is that an act of aggression + the followup of trying to obtain a lethal weapon is what makes the person a lethal threat.
Not the mere having a weapon.

The only time Rosenbaum grabbed at the gun was when Rittenhouse aimed it at him.

So you've got this somehow completely ass-backwards but won't admit it.

[Specialka]

Did he? We know there was a gunshot, but I don't know if we know the direction it was shot.



That's not being cornered, that's being outrun. And had he not turned around to shoot Rosenbaum, he very likely could have outrun him. Or is a spry 17 year old slower than a much larger 36 year old?



Aggressive, sure! Deadly threat? Not in the slightest.

Unless we can now murder anyone we feel is being "aggressive" and call it self defense?

Would you pursue someone with a gun when you have none ? How did Rittenhouse knew what Rosenbaum wanted to achieve ? How could he make him stop ? He was slower since he could not outrun him, and he was physically weaker as well.

[jonnysensible]

You are dense, it is becoming ridiculous.

It is the culmination of chasing + shouting + throwing objects at him + cornering him as he could not outrun him.

all of those things dont equate to his life being in any danger. He was a massive pussy with a gun that didnt know anything about rules of escalation.

[Specialka]

And none of that builds up to a situation where Rittenhouse could reasonable believe he was facing threat of imminent death or great bodily harm.

If we ignore the lead-up, again, what you describe would have justified Rittenhouse punching Rosenbaum, maybe. Nothing more. Proportionality of response is a legal expectation in self defense. If you escalate, you're no longer acting in self defense, but committing murder.

In a fist fight, Rosenbaum would have destroy Rittenhouse as he was much more stronger.