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

[Endus]

The second shooting is quite obviously not going to get him convicted because it's self defense.

You can't possibly be serious.

He'd just shot someone. They were taking down an active shooter. Do you think a mall spree shooter should be legally entitled to shoot everyone who tries to stop them, or is that still murder? Same fricking difference.

The first shooting, to me there's not enough evidence to say definitively, the video is not great. Rittenhouse is claiming he was being attacked.

Again. Does not fucking matter if he was being attacked. Rosenbaum was unarmed and hadn't even hit Rosenbaum, so there's no justifiable way for Rittenhouse to think he's about to be killed or permanently disfigured. And short of that, lethal force is not justified in self defense.

He could've probably shoved Rosenbaum. Maybe even justified smacking him with either a fist or the butt of his gun. Shooting Rosenbaum? Fuckno. That's how a vicious murderer would respond.

- - - Updated - - -

Their belief doesn't change whether it actually was self defense.

I can believe that someone is the devil and attack him randomly, that person is allowed to defend himself. The key here is the first shooting. It's less clear that he was being attacked, the video is not as complete.

What you seem to not get, is that Rittenhouse is the one who's seeing devils, in this analysis. That's why he panicked and shot Rosenbaum without any kind of justification whatsoever.

There's no way you're going to be legally able to make the argument that an unarmed man who'd never laid a finger on you posed a threat of death or great bodily harm to you.

Edit: I'll also make the point that, like so many others, you're choosing to focus solely on the videos, and ignoring all the witness testimony that Rittenhouse provoked Rosenbaum into trying to disarm him.

- - - Updated - - -

When Rittenhouse is being accused, it's his decisions that are being analyzed and the only thing that's relevant is whether he acted in self defense. If Rosenbaum were being accused, then yes, he would be the focal point of the flow chart.

The only reason the belief matters is to the extent it informs the actions of the person accused. Rosenbaum isn't accused.

"Belief" doesn't even matter in the first place. What matters is whether a reasonable person would believe it, in that circumstance. You made this point yourself, unwittingly, by bringing up someone who really believes they see demons. That belief is not a defense. It is motive. The two are not the same thing.

Pointing out that Rittenhouse had a motive for killing Rosenbaum is not the same thing as saying he was legally justified in doing so.

[Endus]

You seem to act like it's an open and shut case, but most analysis I read online by actual experts seems to agree that this is going to be a tough sell:

Then, like other users, you're selectively cherry-picking your sources to support a conclusion you preferred before you even began to look for support. I've already linked plenty of other elements.

Anyway, back to your actual arguments.

Sigh. Yes, if the first shooting was unprovoked, then the second one is too. If the first shooting is self defense, the second is also. He's literally being chased down the street by a group of people, and at least one of the has a gun.

Here's the root problem with your argument, and that of most others defending this murderer.

You keep saying "self defense", as if that's a single thing, and that any act in defending yourself is somehow legal.

The reality is that, under Wisconsin law, you are legally obliged to limit your use of force in self defense, to the minimum amount necessary to end the interference. And lethal force in self defense can only be justified if a reasonable person would believe you were at imminent threat of death or great bodily harm.

Sure. Rittenhouse could have defended himself. No one is disputing that. What's being pointed out is that nothing in the situation warranted Rittenhouse escalating the situation by resorting to lethal force. You can't just say "he was defending himself" and that's that.

Also, I'll note again that self defense is an affirmative defense. You can't just declare it and expect the prosecution to have to disprove it. That's not how it works. The defense team has the burden of proof, there, and they have to establish that there was an imminent threat of death or great bodily harm, and that a reasonable person would have seen it that way. Fail to make any of those points, and the self defense claim fails.

When you say that there was no justification for the shooting, there is a witness mentioned in the complaint stating that Rosenbaum was chasing Rittenhouse and reached for Rittenhouse's gun. So the case hinges on whether a "reasonable person" would have used the gun in that circumstance. And yes, you're right, it's not about what Rittenhouse believed, it's about what a reasonable person would have believed. To me that's a hard standard to apply here, because what reasonable person would have been walking around Kenosha with an assault rifle? But teleport a reasonable person into that insane situation, and maybe they are terrified and shoot too.

To me, it's not open and shut.

If you're "terrified" and you shot out of fear, that's pretty much a straight admission that you were acting unreasonably. If you make it about his fear and panic, you admit that Rittenhouse is a murderer.

Edit: To repeat an earlier point that you seem to be ignoring, too; Kyle Rittenhouse fled the scene and did not turn himself in after committing a multiple homicide. He made a phone call immediately after shooting Rosenbaum, to a friend, not the police. His actions in the aftermath are a clear demonstration of mens rea, and by themselves alone, are likely enough to completely negate any possible claim of self defense. The same way you driving away from a vehicular homicide means you'll be prosecuted for that killing even if the accident itself was not initially your fault.

[silveth]

Try to picture a flow chart in your head.

First decision point says, was the first shooting self defense? There are two arrows coming out of it. One says "yes", the other says "no".

If yes: Then people were attacking a shooter who was defending himself. That means his further defense is still self defense.

If no: Then people were attacking a shooter who was indiscriminately shooting other people, and makes their actions more explainable.

That's all that I'm saying. The key to thinking about the second shooting is what you think about the first one. So the first one is the critical one.

The problem with saying one or the other in this instance is the situation. Whether the first one was self defense or not, both the video and witness say he was running to the police at that point. So you can't jump to him being a person who was indiscriminately shooting people. Since he was running away from the mob and to the police ( and you can see he didn't try to stop and shoot more at the people chasing him), you can't say he was looking to shoot more people or would have if they didn't attack him when he fell during the chase. So the second and killing and the wounding are not necessarily tied to the first like that.

One could easily make the case that they could have just kept following him to the police and inform them that he shot someone.

It amazes me that the same people say the reverse when they talked about the police killing in Atlanta. You can't say that someone was no longer a threat while running away with a weapon that he had already used as to why the cop was wrong to shoot him (even though he had turned and attempt to taser the cop a second time), but then say this kid was still a threat, when he was running away with a weapon from the mob to the cops where they could have informed them (like apparently he tried to do himself).

I am still on the fence because I agree it is not cut and dry, but I also think the circumstances surrounding both instances and the current times make it hard to just say if 1 then all. These things didn't happen in a vacuum.

[Shadowferal]

Ah yes, endusitalicslol.

You seem to act like it's an open and shut case, but most analysis I read online by actual experts seems to agree that this is going to be a tough sell:.

And it always amuses when such a case reaches a jury and and a "not guilty" verdict gets unanimously handed down and some people get so shocked that the media would have failed them or the jury failed them. But only one one of those is getting all the info.

Social media and a consolidated mass-media machine have turned us into a glabal box of angry rats, biting our neighbors over each perceived infraction. Terror's profitable, so our media keeps us frightened. Every neighbor is a monster, and we all live right next door.
-Poisonous Utopia

[Endus]

Agreed that you have to show that you're at risk of great bodily harm. So the question is, if someone runs at you, you run away, they catch up and reach for your gun, are you at risk of great bodily harm? I have a hard time applying the reasonableness standard here because it seems like everyone was acting completely unreasonably, from the 17 year old walking around with a gun to the unarmed man chasing him around and trying to grab the gun.

Someone taking your gun away from you does not pose any immediate threat.

Them attempting to use that gun against you, that would.

And you don't get to imagine up that circumstance proactively. Especially not when witness testimony shows they had reason to disarm you.

As to your claim that not calling the police means you're automatically guilty, that's not a legal standard anywhere I'm aware of. Hell, Robert Durst got off on a self defense argument after he dismembered his victim and threw the body parts into the ocean. I guess I'm ignoring it because it seems entirely without merit.

It's a pretty standard demonstration of mens rea. It's not about "automatically guilty", and that's a misrepresentation.

I've also consistently doubted your affirmative defense argument where you state that the burden of proof lies with the defendant. I found this directly in a Wisconsin court of appeals statement:

"When an affirmative defense is successfully put at issue, the burden is on the State to disprove the defense beyond a reasonable doubt."

https://law.justia.com/cases/wiscons...000011-cr.html

Seems to directly contradict your statement, doesn't it? This is what you said:

Only if you don't understand what you quoted. I put the relevant phrase in bold.

That's where the defense team has successfully established that the elements for a self defense argument exist. Yes, at that point, the prosecutors need to take it apart, but it needs to be established by the defense team first. And that's a much harder process than just saying "my client claims self defense, your honor". That's not how it works.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Affirmative_defense

Same way you can't just say "not guilty, I'm totes insane." and have that fly in court. You'll need to prove it, with witness testimony from a psychiatrist and so forth.

[silveth]

Then, like other users, you're selectively cherry-picking your sources to support a conclusion you preferred before you even began to look for support. I've already linked plenty of other elements.



Here's the root problem with your argument, and that of most others defending this murderer.

You keep saying "self defense", as if that's a single thing, and that any act in defending yourself is somehow legal.

The reality is that, under Wisconsin law, you are legally obliged to limit your use of force in self defense, to the minimum amount necessary to end the interference. And lethal force in self defense can only be justified if a reasonable person would believe you were at imminent threat of death or great bodily harm.

Sure. Rittenhouse could have defended himself. No one is disputing that. What's being pointed out is that nothing in the situation warranted Rittenhouse escalating the situation by resorting to lethal force. You can't just say "he was defending himself" and that's that.

Also, I'll note again that self defense is an affirmative defense. You can't just declare it and expect the prosecution to have to disprove it. That's not how it works. The defense team has the burden of proof, there, and they have to establish that there was an imminent threat of death or great bodily harm, and that a reasonable person would have seen it that way. Fail to make any of those points, and the self defense claim fails.



If you're "terrified" and you shot out of fear, that's pretty much a straight admission that you were acting unreasonably. If you make it about his fear and panic, you admit that Rittenhouse is a murderer.

Edit: To repeat an earlier point that you seem to be ignoring, too; Kyle Rittenhouse fled the scene and did not turn himself in after committing a multiple homicide. He made a phone call immediately after shooting Rosenbaum, to a friend, not the police. His actions in the aftermath are a clear demonstration of mens rea, and by themselves alone, are likely enough to completely negate any possible claim of self defense. The same way you driving away from a vehicular homicide means you'll be prosecuted for that killing even if the accident itself was not initially your fault.

Actually your wrong. The prosecution has to prove beyond reasonable doubt that he committed the crimes he was accused of. In this case the defense only needs to provide enough justification for self defense to provide doubt that he was committing murder 1 and such.

Witness saying there were threats yelled at him and "his group or defenders" before the incident.
Plenty of videos out there showing people getting attacked and beaten by mobs of rioters. A bunch of them should be called attempted murders, since it was dumb luck that they ended up in ICU/CCU and not a cemetery.
Gun shots from behind him while is was running away (Before the first shooting).

I think there is evidence that he could have been terrified for his life.

To your edit. All witnesses say he running toward the police when the second indecent went down.
When the cops got to the second incident area, he didn't flea, he walked to the police.
After he was told to leave (the cops were morons for that). He left, went home and turned himself into .......THE POLICE. You are talking like he was going on lam like the guy on in Portland.

Now I am still on the fence about the first shooting because its not straight forward whether it was murder or self defense.

I am still saddened that 2 people are dead from this either way. I am upset because this could have been avoided if the "peaceful protesters" were just that and not rioters. I am upset because if the governor allowed the police to stop the rioters in the beginning, then the kid wouldn't have been there. I am annoyed that the governor refused the national guard help before this incident occurred.

[Elegiac]

And that's where we disagree. That seems pretty threatening to me, factoring in that he was chasing him around. This is why when I read about the facts of this case, I kind of want to throw up my hands and be like, "What the fuck?" Who goes to a riot carrying an assault rifle? And who starts chasing that guy around? It's all people acting totally irresponsibly. If for some reason I was walking around with a gun (unlikely to ever happen) and someone was chasing me around and trying to take the gun, I'd think there was something seriously wrong with that person and feel pretty threatened by him. I don't know how to apply a reasonableness standard when everyone involved seems to be pretty insane.

I do understand the affirmative defense argument, by the way. Obviously they can't just say it, there has to be some evidence, but the burden is not nearly as high as the burden for the prosecution to convict a defendant... as the article posted states. It's basic reasonable man standard. That's all.

And remember, the conviction has to be unanimous. That seems like a long shot here.

Is this the part where y’all try to tell us that the first rule of gun safety is not letting your attacker get your weapon again, lol?

Right wingers really be out here repeating Star Wars quotes like “this weapon is your life” as if its an ethical argument.

Glad to see you agree that guns do not make people safer, though. Welcome to the 2A abolition cause.

[Shadowferal]

Pfft...if a gun isn't a threat then the 2nd amendment should never be an issue.

[Bodakane]

And that's where we disagree. That seems pretty threatening to me, factoring in that he was chasing him around. This is why when I read about the facts of this case, I kind of want to throw up my hands and be like, "What the fuck?" Who goes to a riot carrying an assault rifle? And who starts chasing that guy around? It's all people acting totally irresponsibly. If for some reason I was walking around with a gun (unlikely to ever happen) and someone was chasing me around and trying to take the gun, I'd think there was something seriously wrong with that person and feel pretty threatened by him. I don't know how to apply a reasonableness standard when everyone involved seems to be pretty insane.

I do understand the affirmative defense argument, by the way. Obviously they can't just say it, there has to be some evidence, but the burden is not nearly as high as the burden for the prosecution to convict a defendant... as the article posted states. It's basic reasonable man standard. That's all.

And remember, the conviction has to be unanimous. That seems like a long shot here.

You are either not paying attention or ignoring key parts on purpose.

Grabbing a gun is not in and of itself a death level threat.
So, "reaching" for a gun is also not in and of itself a death level threat and even less so than grabbing.

Grabbing a knife is not in and of itself a death level threat.
So "reaching" for a knife is also not in and of itself a death level threat and even less so than grabbing.

And on top of all that, you're still ignoring that Rittenhouse admitted on video, he was there to "put himself into harm's way". He was not an innocent bystander. His intent matters. His intent screams aggressor and NOT self defense.

[Draco-Onis]

I think there is evidence that he could have been terrified for his life.

Oh yes the guy who got an gun illegally and came to another state while saying "we don't do non lethal" on video is tote not the aggressor and was "afraid" for his life.

I am still saddened that 2 people are dead from this either way. I am upset because this could have been avoided if the "peaceful protesters" were just that and not rioters

How about the crazy nut job who isn't a cop and no one called for stayed the fuck home? no you aren't upset because you are putting this shit bag on a pedestal.

[Endus]

And that's where we disagree. That seems pretty threatening to me, factoring in that he was chasing him around.

That's not an honest phrasing.

The question is not "was there anything threatening in the area?"

The question is "did Rosenbaum himself pose a reasonable threat of imminent threat or great bodily harm to Rittenhouse?"

Anything short of that specific level of threat, and Rittenhouse's use of lethal force was murder.

Actually your wrong. The prosecution has to prove beyond reasonable doubt that he committed the crimes he was accused of.

Are you disputing that Rittenhouse shot Rosenbaum?

Because if not, that's already proven and you know it to be true, so I have to ask if you just have no grasp of basic legal principles, of if you're deliberately posting disinformation to create a false sense of confusion about the facts of the case.

To your edit. All witnesses say he running toward the police when the second indecent went down.
When the cops got to the second incident area, he didn't flea, he walked to the police.
After he was told to leave (the cops were morons for that). He left, went home and turned himself into .......THE POLICE. You are talking like he was going on lam like the guy on in Portland.

This is a flat-out lie.

He did not turn himself in to the Kenosha police. He just walked past them.

He also did not turn himself in to the Antioch police, at home; they arrested him, on a fugitive warrant that was issued. Because he was a fugitive. Whoever you got this nugget of horseshit from is a liar.

I'll grant you the consideration that maybe you're not informed about the case and got suckered by a propagandist because you didn't double check their information.

[Bodakane]

Here's another black male getting absurd by the cops:

https://www.yahoo.com/news/florida-d...160246021.html

[Bodakane]

I agree with the question, and I still phrase it as "Rosenbaum was chasing Rittenhouse and tried to take the gun away from him". I'm don't get how you see dishonest phrasing, what part of it is inconsistent with the facts?

Then, imminent threat is subjective. I can see how someone chasing you and trying to pry your gun away could be construed as an imminent threat. Rittenhouse was running away and Rosenbaum was chasing him. Why? Is it unreasonable to assume that someone who is trying to take a gun away forcefully is taking it in order to use it?

Remember that the law of the land supports people walking around carrying guns for self defense. Therefore, the law supports the idea that a reasonable person can be walking around with a gun. If that's the case, how can a gun be effective in self defense if people are allowed to forcibly take them away from you and you can't use the gun to stop that? It's illogical. It can be viewed as an imminent threat because it's an attempt to strip you of the ability (given to you by the constitution) to adequately defend yourself.

Then it was reasonable to assume Rittenhouse was a threat while armed and Rosenbaum and the other two victims were trying to stop him.

You can;t say reaching for a gun is somehow a deadly threat when already having the gun and brandishing it isn't a deadly threat.

[Bodakane]

Absolutely the cop should be fired.

Now excuse me while I go play the world smallest violin for the teenager who said, "I’ll kill you cracker if we on the streets. I’ll blow your fucking head off." and got a beatdown for it. Another innocent victim violated!

Being a cop working in jails is a terrible job.

Well.....you just outed yourself. Glad I helped.

[Bodakane]

It is not. It's reasonable (according to our fucked up laws) that Rosenbaum could bring his own gun. It's not reasonable that he could take someone else's gun away by force.

Yeah, nope. And frankly after your last post, everything is crystal fucking clear now.

[Bodakane]

How so? I outed myself as lacking sympathy for people who make death threats?

If you don't see the problem with not being upset that a police officer beat a teenage kid who was already in custody and didn't;t pose an actual threat, then yeah, you're part of the problem.

[Bodakane]

I see it as two separate things.

1. The officer's actions. You can't have people acting that way working as a police officer. People are going to say atrocious shit to you all the time and you just have to take it. So yes, I see it as a problem that he didn't.

2. I don't have a ton of sympathy for the kid. He was trying to elicit a reaction from the cop, and he got it.

I view this as the type of thing that's going to occasionally happen in the situation we are in as a society. The cop is likely going to get fired, and that's fine, the mechanisms working normally. But the kid isn't a hero.

No one positioned the kid as a hero. He is, however, a victim....one of many.

Your post made it abundantly clear, you're considerably more upset that an angry teenager lost his temper then you were that a grown ass man with training lost his temper worse. Seeing how the cop acted how can you not even question why the kid was there in the first place? Because the kid isn't your concern and you believe he basically got what he deserved. You know you think that, I know you think that and anyone reading what you wrote knows you think that.

[Endus]

I agree with the question, and I still phrase it as "Rosenbaum was chasing Rittenhouse and tried to take the gun away from him". I'm don't get how you see dishonest phrasing, what part of it is inconsistent with the facts?

It's dishonest because self defense is not a binary yes/no thing. You don't get to just respond with whatever level of force you want to. Proportionality is inherently a component, and you're flat-out ignoring that, by phrasing Rosenbaum as a "threat". Same with people who label him the "aggressor". Even if those claims are true (and that is by no means clear), that does not mean he posed a threat of imminent death or great bodily harm. That phrase is absolutely critical; you can not legally respond to a threat with lethal force unless it is that level of threat.

If someone punches you in the face and tosses you out of a bar and kicks you in the gut really hard, you don't get to shoot him to defend yourself. It does not matter that they attacked you without provocation or that they're clearly in the wrong. What matters is the level of threat, and "I'm beat up pretty bad and might even need a few stitches" is not anywhere close to the legal requirement to justify lethal force in response.

By ignoring the level of threat posed, you're ignoring this fundamental question, which you can't ignore in this discussion. Not if you're coming at this honestly.

Then, imminent threat is subjective.

It absolutely is not. "Imminent" means "it's about to happen". If someone says "I'll kill you if you ever come around here again", you don't get to shoot them. That threat is not "imminent".

I can see how someone chasing you and trying to pry your gun away could be construed as an imminent threat.

You're doing it again.

"Imminent threat of death or great bodily harm". You have to say the whole thing, because if any of that isn't true, Rittenhouse does not have a self defense argument. If the threat is not imminent, no claim. If the threat does not rise to immediate death or great bodily harm (which, as I've cited previously, means permanent impairment or disfigurement, not bruised and battered).

Rittenhouse was running away and Rosenbaum was chasing him. Why? Is it unreasonable to assume that someone who is trying to take a gun away forcefully is taking it in order to use it?

Yes. That's you making shit up. You're reacting based on your overactive imagination, not the facts in front of you.

Was Rosenbaum threatening to take his gun and shoot him with it? Seriously; if that's your claim, I want actual evidence that Rosenbaum said that. If not, then why would I entertain that? Witnesses say Rittenhouse was handling his weapon poorly and putting bystanders at risk. That's solid grounds for someone to disarm him. Why isn't that reasoning being considered, by you and those others supporting Rittenhouse?

It's internally hypocritical. You're trying to argue that the only reason Rosenbaum could have wanted Rittenhouse's gun was to commit murder. Based solely on "he had a gun, he's gonna murder". By that argument, Rittenhouse was already a threat, by being armed, and your position makes no sense.

Remember that the law of the land supports people walking around carrying guns for self defense.

Carrying, yes. Brandishing and/or firing, only under very specific circumstances.

Oddly, your entire position is that Rittenhouse was justified in pre-emptively killing Rosenbaum just for the possibility that Rosenbaum might arm himself. That's the hypocrisy in your argument.

Therefore, the law supports the idea that a reasonable person can be walking around with a gun. If that's the case, how can a gun be effective in self defense if people are allowed to forcibly take them away from you and you can't use the gun to stop that?

The bit in bold there is where you go from "reasonable self defense" to "crazy right-wing gun nut murderer", just so we're clear. That's you escalating the interference from petty theft and assault to lethal force homicide. That isn't supported by Wisconsin law.

It's illogical. It can be viewed as an imminent threat because it's an attempt to strip you of the ability (given to you by the constitution) to adequately defend yourself.

Again, "imminent threat of immediate death or great bodily harm".

Whole phrase.

Is you being disarmed, all by itself, going to kill you or maim you? That's ridiculous. That's why it doesn't hold up as an argument.

The question is not "was Rosenbaum in the right to try and take Rittenhouse's weapon". That's completely irrelevant to Rittenhouse's self defense claim. It may have been justified, it may have been an attempt at assault and theft. Doesn't matter. It isn't an imminent threat of death or great bodily harm, so lethal force in response is not legally justifiable as self defense.

Rosenbaum could've punched Rittenhouse in the face, and it still wouldn't rise to that. Which he didn't. Rosenbaum never touched him.

[Bodakane]

I've stated that the cop should lose his job, which is a far worse punishment than the teen got. I'm just highlighting that I don't think it's fair to view the teen as a victim (assuming his injuries are minor and he recovers quickly).

He's absolutely a victim. To think otherwise, again, proves you're part fo the problem. It also proves your stance biased as fuck with rittenhouse.

[Endus]

I won't lose any sleep if Rittenhouse goes to jail, and I'm kind of acting as devil's advocate here. I would prefer if no one was allowed to have a gun outside of a hunting context, and I'm sure you can find old posts of mine stating that pissing off everyone on the gun control thread.

But if we do allow guns, it seems totally illogical if people are able to just take your gun away by force and you can't do anything, completely negating the supposed benefit of having the gun.

You're attacking a straw man.

Nobody is saying people can take your gun away by force and you can't do anything. That's not an argument anyone is making.

We're saying that if someone tries to take your gun, that does not provide you legal grounds to kill them. Not in Wisconsin, at least, which is all that's relevant here. Feel free to fight them off non-lethally.

If Rittenhouse had punched a few people on his way out of the protest area, because they were grabbing at his gun, nobody would be calling for his arrest. That's not what he did. He killed two people and maimed a third. That's the problem.

Again, your entire defense of Rittenhouse's actions rests on your complete refusal or inability to consider proportionality of response. And that's not an argument.