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

[Felya]

The protests were dying down. Before the unnamed feds showed up.

I wonder why there might be even more protests now:

Trump orders crackdown on federal antiracism training, calling it 'anti-American'
https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/...al-race-theory

Decades-Old Housing Discrimination Case Plagues Donald Trump
https://www.npr.org/2016/09/29/49595...imination-case

"[The settlement] required the Trumps to place ads in newspapers saying that they welcomed black applicants," Kranish says. "It said that the Trumps would familiarize themselves with the Fair Housing Act, which prohibited discrimination. So it also specifically said they don't admit wrongdoing, but they did have to take several measures that the Trumps had fought for two years not to take."

The bold is called antiracism training...

[Endus]

Stop lying, Wisconsin law allows you to shoot in self defense if you fear great bodily harm or death. A hostile person trying to disarm you and arm themselves is likely to result in great bodily harm or death, especially when he's part of a group that had just discharged a gun while pursuing you.

That is not a reasonable conclusion. That is how a murderer rationalizes their crime. You're describing motive, not a defense.

I literally cannot find any lawyers arguing that Kyle wasn't in his right to shoot in self defense, this is not a matter of cherry picking.

. . . what?

I linked you to a long document written by lawyers who absolutely think he's guilty. They charged him with first degree murder, among other charges.

Either you haven't even read the charging documents and literally do not know the basic facts of the incident, or you're lying.

The only actual witness statement we have is that Kyle was running away from someone that made multiple attempts to take his weapon.

Again, we know this is a lie, because there's already official witness testimony from people other than Kyle Rittenhouse.

You really didn't even bother to find out the basic facts before making up a bunch of shit and pretending it was a valid opinion, did you?

[DingDongKing]

-snip-

Chief, you’re bang on. The guy is just detailing. Ignore him and move forward.

[Shalcker]

The protests were dying down. Before the unnamed feds showed up.

You could just show daily graph of whatever metric proves it then. Average percent by month are not helpful in that regard.

[silveth]

That is not a reasonable conclusion. That is how a murderer rationalizes their crime. You're describing motive, not a defense.



. . . what?

I linked you to a long document written by lawyers who absolutely think he's guilty. They charged him with first degree murder, among other charges.

Either you haven't even read the charging documents and literally do not know the basic facts of the incident, or you're lying.



Again, we know this is a lie, because there's already official witness testimony from people other than Kyle Rittenhouse.

You really didn't even bother to find out the basic facts before making up a bunch of shit and pretending it was a valid opinion, did you?

I will say that with a witness/reporter who was there video taping the riot stating that he believed that if the kid hadn't defended himself then he would be dead, does make the self defense argument realistic. I am not saying that I agree or disagree, but if a non rioter/non defender (not sure what to call the guy trying to defend the property) witness, aka someone not involved with either clashing group states that he believed that the kid was in deadly peril, then I could see a jury agreeing.

We may find out that all the witnesses are all tainted or they are all being truthful to what the saw and believe. Or maybe only some of them are, who knows. The issue right now is that the videos tied together in a stream do present a plausible case of self defense. You can disagree, but its up to the DA to disprove it to the jury.

I do think first degree murder is an overcharge though. They weren't even charging the guy in Portland with 1st degree even with video evidence showing he was guilty of it. They were charging second degree and that case was a lot more straight forward.

[Endus]

I will say that with a witness/reporter who was there video taping the riot stating that he believed that if the kid hadn't defended himself then he would be dead, does make the self defense argument realistic. I am not saying that I agree or disagree, but if a non rioter/non defender (not sure what to call the guy trying to defend the property) witness, aka someone not involved with either clashing group states that he believed that the kid was in deadly peril, then I could see a jury agreeing.

Which witness was this, exactly?

Because I haven't seen anything of the sort. McGinnis certainly didn't argue that, from anything I've seen.

The issue right now is that the videos tied together in a stream do present a plausible case of self defense. You can disagree, but its up to the DA to disprove it to the jury.

This is entirely, factually, incorrect.

A claim of self defense is an affirmative defense. It can not be presumed true, and it is not the DA's job to disprove it pre-emptively.

The defense team needs to establish self defense as a legal defense. The defense team is the one who has to prove that a self defense argument is reasonable and justified; the default assumption is that it is not, without supporting evidence.

I do think first degree murder is an overcharge though. They weren't even charging the guy in Portland with 1st degree even with video evidence showing he was guilty of it. They were charging second degree and that case was a lot more straight forward.

The idea of "overcharging" is dumb. The judge and jury should, in any reasonable legal system, be able to convict on a lesser charge if they choose to. The idea that they "overcharged" so you get to get away with murder is just . . . incredibly stupid and without any value in terms of achieving justice.

The grounds for 1st degree is gonna be pretty simple, here, though. Establish that Rittenhouse has a history of comments that support violence like this, in his social media. Demonstrate that he voluntarily armed himself to attend the protest. Demonstrate he intentionally fired. Ta-da, 1st degree murder is proven. That's all it takes. Premeditation just means you've thought about killing before, and took steps to get into a position to take action on that. You don't need a complicated plan or a specific target.

[wunksta]

Cops should not be used for mental wellness checks
https://www.mysanantonio.com/news/lo...h-15530385.php

[DingDongKing]

Cops should not be used for mental wellness checks
https://www.mysanantonio.com/news/lo...h-15530385.php

What’s frustrating as fuck is how pro-Trump supporters can even begin to claim that such shootings aren’t commonplace in America AND are not a a massive issue. It’s sad and sickening.

[postman1782]

Then you should have no problems linking us some credible lawyers saying such.

Watch out, he is probably going to link Viva Frei or one of his friends, moron is a Canadian Lawyer that most likely doesn't know US law.

- - - Updated - - -

*Sigh* Please, tell us how he managed to shoot him three times in the front and then once in the back in under a second? You know you don't suddenly not become the aggressor if your back is exposed while attacking someone right?

Again, Rittenhouse is the aggressor, considering he pointed his gun at people.

- - - Updated - - -

I will say that with a witness/reporter who was there video taping the riot stating that he believed that if the kid hadn't defended himself then he would be dead, does make the self defense argument realistic. I am not saying that I agree or disagree, but if a non rioter/non defender (not sure what to call the guy trying to defend the property) witness, aka someone not involved with either clashing group states that he believed that the kid was in deadly peril, then I could see a jury agreeing.

We may find out that all the witnesses are all tainted or they are all being truthful to what the saw and believe. Or maybe only some of them are, who knows. The issue right now is that the videos tied together in a stream do present a plausible case of self defense. You can disagree, but its up to the DA to disprove it to the jury.

I do think first degree murder is an overcharge though. They weren't even charging the guy in Portland with 1st degree even with video evidence showing he was guilty of it. They were charging second degree and that case was a lot more straight forward.

Except, the first witness that showed that Rittenhouse was pointing his gun at people.

[Aurrora]

That is not a reasonable conclusion. That is how a murderer rationalizes their crime. You're describing motive, not a defense.



. . . what?

I linked you to a long document written by lawyers who absolutely think he's guilty. They charged him with first degree murder, among other charges.

[Either you haven't even read the charging documents and literally do not know the basic facts of the incident, or you're lying.

Written by the prosecution, of course they're going to be arguing that he's guilty, that's their job. Find me a third party lawyer that's also arguing Kyle is guilty, every one I've seen is arguing he's innocent.

Again, we know this is a lie, because there's already official witness testimony from people other than Kyle Rittenhouse.

You really didn't even bother to find out the basic facts before making up a bunch of shit and pretending it was a valid opinion, did you?

What are you talking about? That was Richard McGinnis's witness testimony right there in the criminal complaint that says Kyle was attempting to evade Rosenbaum and only fired after Rosenbaum tried to grab his weapon. You are a liar.

[Zan15]

I wonder why there might be even more protests now:

Trump orders crackdown on federal antiracism training, calling it 'anti-American'
https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/...al-race-theory

Decades-Old Housing Discrimination Case Plagues Donald Trump
https://www.npr.org/2016/09/29/49595...imination-case


The bold is called antiracism training...

Of course he is....its anti-american in "his America"...which does not include treating brown, black and other non whites equally. Hell it does not even realistically treat poor people equally either but his main base still can't see how much he hates them

[Aurrora]

I do think first degree murder is an overcharge though. They weren't even charging the guy in Portland with 1st degree even with video evidence showing he was guilty of it. They were charging second degree and that case was a lot more straight forward.

That's because first degree murder is different in Oregon, Oregon's first degree murder seems to focus on specific method(explosives), motive(to conceal commission of a crime) or target(judicial figure, peace officers, etc.), premeditation doesn't seem to be part of it.

- - - Updated - - -

Again, Rittenhouse is the aggressor, considering he pointed his gun at people.

- - - Updated - - -

Except, the first witness that showed that Rittenhouse was pointing his gun at people.

Except there's no evidence of this as of yet, the video clearly shows Rosenbaum acting as the aggressor, and even if Kyle had pointed his weapon at someone, he loses that aggressor status because he was running away. Rosenbaum was the attacker no matter which way you view it.

[postman1782]

That's because first degree murder is different in Oregon, Oregon's first degree murder seems to focus on specific method(explosives), motive(to conceal commission of a crime) or target(judicial figure, peace officers, etc.), premeditation doesn't seem to be part of it.

- - - Updated - - -



Except there's no evidence of this as of yet, the video clearly shows Rosenbaum acting as the aggressor, and even if Kyle had pointed his weapon at someone, he loses that aggressor status because he was running away. Rosenbaum was the attacker no matter which way you view it.

In response to him pointing guns at people? Hell yes, if I were Rosenbaum, I would take the bastard's gun too. And no, you don't suddenly lose the aggressor status when you start running, that just makes you a fugitive, because you just committed a fucking crime.

[Endus]

Written by the prosecution, of course they're going to be arguing that he's guilty, that's their job. Find me a third party lawyer that's also arguing Kyle is guilty, every one I've seen is arguing he's innocent.

This is a bad position, because it isn't written by the prosecutors. It's written by the DA. The prosecutors will only come into this when it goes to trial.

However, to prove the point, here's more lawyers who think the argument is dumb;
https://lawandcrime.com/high-profile...legal-defense/
https://www.newsweek.com/kyle-ritten...otests-1528301

If you're not finding these things, it's because you're actively choosing to not make any effort to look.

What are you talking about? That was Richard McGinnis's witness testimony right there in the criminal complaint that says Kyle was attempting to evade Rosenbaum and only fired after Rosenbaum tried to grab his weapon. You are a liar.

I've got it right. You don't.

https://www.documentcloud.org/docume...Complaint.html

Detective Cepress interviewed McGinnis and indicates the following: Before the shooting, McGinnis was interviewing the defendant. The defendant told McGinnis that he was a trained medic. McGinnis stated that he (McGinnis) has handled many ARs and that the defendant was not handling the weapon very well. McGinnis said that as they were walking south another armed male who appeared to be in his 30s joined them and said he was there to protect the defendant. McGinnis stated that before the defendant reached the parking lot and ran across it, the defendant had moved from the middle of Sheridan Road to the sidewalk and that is when McGinnis saw a male (Rosenbaum) initially try to engage the defendant. McGinnis stated that as the defendant was walking Rosenbaum was trying to get closer to the defendant. When Rosenbaum advanced, the defendant did a “juke” move and started running. McGinnis stated that there were other people that were moving very quickly. McGinnis stated that they were moving towards the defendant. McGinnis said that according to what he saw the defendant was trying to evade these individuals.

McGinnis described the point where the defendant had reached the car. McGinnis described that the defendant had the gun in a low ready position. Meaning that he had the gun raised but pointed downward. The butt of the gun would have been at an angle downwards from the shoulder. McGinnis stated that the defendant brought the gun up. McGinnis stated that he stepped back and he thinks the defendant fired 3 rounds in rapid succession. McGinnis said when the first round went off, he thought it hit the pavement. McGinnis felt something on his leg and his first thought was wondering whether he had gotten shot. McGinnis was behind and slightly to the right of Rosenbaum, in the line of fire, when the defendant shot.

McGinnis stated that the first round went into the ground and when the second shot went off, the defendant actually had the gun aimed at Rosenbaum. McGinnis stated he did not hear the two exchange any words. McGinnis said that the unarmed guy (Rosenbaum) was trying to get the defendant’s gun. McGinnis demonstrated by extending both of his hands in a quick grabbing motion and did that as a visual on how Rosenbaum tried to reach for the defendant’s gun.Detective Cepress indicates that he asked McGinnis if Rosenbaum had his hands on the gun when the defendant shot. McGinnis said that he definitely made a motion that he was trying to grab the barrel of the gun. McGinnis stated that the defendant pulled it away and then raised it. McGinnis stated that right as they came together, the defendant fired. McGinnis said that when Rosenbaum was shot, he had leaned in (towards the defendant).

I've added some emphases, since you're not reading it properly.

McGinnis clearly stats that Rittenhouse fired before Rosenbaum grabbed at his weapon. Rittenhouse started running way before this. Rosenbaum only tried to grab at the rifle when Rittenhouse turned and took aim at Rosenbaum.

Which, for everyone in the cheap seats, is a clear and obvious lethal threat to Rosenbaum, which means he'd be entirely justified in doing so. Obviously.

If you're gonna claim I'm a liar, take a couple minutes and double-check that you've got the facts straight, because you very clearly do not.

- - - Updated - - -

Except there's no evidence of this as of yet, the video clearly shows Rosenbaum acting as the aggressor, and even if Kyle had pointed his weapon at someone, he loses that aggressor status because he was running away. Rosenbaum was the attacker no matter which way you view it.

The bit in bold is just obviously wrong. You don't get to instigate a violent confrontation and then run away and shout "NO BACKSIES" and you're free and clear and nobody can consider you a threat anymore. That's ridiculous.

[JohnBrown1917]

That's because first degree murder is different in Oregon, Oregon's first degree murder seems to focus on specific method(explosives), motive(to conceal commission of a crime) or target(judicial figure, peace officers, etc.), premeditation doesn't seem to be part of it.

- - - Updated - - -



Except there's no evidence of this as of yet, the video clearly shows Rosenbaum acting as the aggressor, and even if Kyle had pointed his weapon at someone, he loses that aggressor status because he was running away. Rosenbaum was the attacker no matter which way you view it.

We already have evidence he was shot in the back, give it up.

[postman1782]

We already have evidence he was shot in the back, give it up.

Aurrora is trying to say that he leaned forward to be shot in the back that went through the liver and lung. And judging by a diagram of the body it would be hard to argue that he was shot in the back, leaning forward, while being shot 3 times in the front and the 4th shot hitting him in the back in literally less than a second, it is physically impossible.

[Bodakane]

Aurrora is trying to say that he leaned forward to be shot in the back that went through the liver and lung. And judging by a diagram of the body it would be hard to argue that he was shot in the back, leaning forward, while being shot 3 times in the front and the 4th shot hitting him in the back in literally less than a second, it is physically impossible.

Hey....wait a minute...Mr. Postman.....

Are you bringing facts to a crybaby fight?

[Aurrora]

This is a bad position, because it isn't written by the prosecutors. It's written by the DA. The prosecutors will only come into this when it goes to trial.

However, to prove the point, here's more lawyers who think the argument is dumb;
https://lawandcrime.com/high-profile...legal-defense/
https://www.newsweek.com/kyle-ritten...otests-1528301

Those opinions are based on the since debunked narrative that Kyle crossed state lines with an illegal weapon for the sole purpose of participating in this protest. None are arguing his shooting of Rosenbaum wasn't an act of self defense but that assumed prior behavior, which we now know to be inaccurate changed the context of it.

If you're not finding these things, it's because you're actively choosing to not make any effort to look.



I've got it right. You don't.

https://www.documentcloud.org/docume...Complaint.html


I've added some emphases, since you're not reading it properly.

McGinnis clearly stats that Rittenhouse fired before Rosenbaum grabbed at his weapon. Rittenhouse started running way before this. Rosenbaum only tried to grab at the rifle when Rittenhouse turned and took aim at Rosenbaum.

Which, for everyone in the cheap seats, is a clear and obvious lethal threat to Rosenbaum, which means he'd be entirely justified in doing so. Obviously.

If you're gonna claim I'm a liar, take a couple minutes and double-check that you've got the facts straight, because you very clearly do not.

- - - Updated - - -



The bit in bold is just obviously wrong. You don't get to instigate a violent confrontation and then run away and shout "NO BACKSIES" and you're free and clear and nobody can consider you a threat anymore. That's ridiculous.

Which clearly states that Rosenbaum was already the aggressor as we can see on video that he makes a move towards Kyle that starts the chase, throws something at him while chasing him, and is still running at him when he turns around. You don't stop becoming the aggressor when you're in between punches. Kyle pointing the weapon at Rosenbaum is a valid threat in self defense as Rosenbaum was attacking him.

"Although intentionally pointing a firearm at another constitutes a violation of s. 941.20, under sub. (1) a person is privileged to point a gun at another person in self-defense if the person reasonably believes that the threat of force is necessary to prevent or terminate what he or she reasonably believes to be an unlawful interference. State v. Watkins, 2002 WI 101, 255 Wis. 2d 265, 647 N.W.2d 244, 00-0064."

As the threat of force didn't stop Rosenbaum from continuing to attack him Kyle was in his lawful right to shoot in self defense to prevent great bodily harm or death. You can't just assault someone and take their weapon. Once again I ask you to please find the nearest police officer and try to take his service weapon if you truly believe this won't warrant a lethal response.

Once again, McGinnis's opinion on how Kyle is handling his rifle does not constitute an accusation that Kyle was pointing it unlawfully at people, you cannot make that assumption.

[Bodakane]

Those opinions are based on the since debunked narrative that Kyle crossed state lines with an illegal weapon for the sole purpose of participating in this protest. None are arguing his shooting of Rosenbaum wasn't an act of self defense but that assumed prior behavior, which we now know to be inaccurate changed the context of it..

Wait when was the fact that Kyle, a resident of another state, with an illegal firearm, crossed state lines with sole purpose of his own words, "to put myself in harms way if I have too", all while wearing latex gloves been disproven?

[postman1782]

Those opinions are based on the since debunked narrative that Kyle crossed state lines with an illegal weapon for the sole purpose of participating in this protest. None are arguing his shooting of Rosenbaum wasn't an act of self defense but that assumed prior behavior, which we now know to be inaccurate changed the context of it.


Which clearly states that Rosenbaum was already the aggressor as we can see on video that he makes a move towards Kyle that starts the chase, throws something at him while chasing him, and is still running at him when he turns around. You don't stop becoming the aggressor when you're in between punches. Kyle pointing the weapon at Rosenbaum is a valid threat in self defense as Rosenbaum was attacking him.

"Although intentionally pointing a firearm at another constitutes a violation of s. 941.20, under sub. (1) a person is privileged to point a gun at another person in self-defense if the person reasonably believes that the threat of force is necessary to prevent or terminate what he or she reasonably believes to be an unlawful interference. State v. Watkins, 2002 WI 101, 255 Wis. 2d 265, 647 N.W.2d 244, 00-0064."

As the threat of force didn't stop Rosenbaum from continuing to attack him Kyle was in his lawful right to shoot in self defense to prevent great bodily harm or death. You can't just assault someone and take their weapon. Once again I ask you to please find the nearest police officer and try to take his service weapon if you truly believe this won't warrant a lethal response.

Once again, McGinnis's opinion on how Kyle is handling his rifle does not constitute an accusation that Kyle was pointing it unlawfully at people, you cannot make that assumption.

Again, you are wrong, unsurprisingly. There isn't just 1 witness, there are at least 2, that have gone on record saying it.