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

[Bodakane]

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.

The purpose of having a gun is to use it against someone from trying to take it away from you? Dafuq.

[postman1782]

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

I think it's crazy that he was allowed in that area holding a gun, but I also think there's a very good chance he is not convicted for the shootings.

Not with the 2 witness accounts that show him waving his gun around pointing at people.

- - - Updated - - -

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.

If he is pointing it at people, which is illegal, everyone should have taken his fucking gun from him.

[postman1782]

So do you think he's going to be convicted? I don't.

2 Eye Witness accounts show he was randomly pointing his gun at people, which is assault with a deadly weapon.

[Endus]

So do you think he's going to be convicted? I don't.

I'm waiting for you to present any kind of legal argument that would provide a defense.

Thus far, you haven't. Every time an argument is proferred, it ignores the proportionality of response requirement. Once you include the witness testimony that Rittenhouse provoked Rosenbaum into disarming him, by presenting a threat, and you include that Rittenhouse fled the scene after committing a multiple homicide, rather than turning himself in to police, and you include that Rittenhouse chose to go into a situation he knew might be risky and chose to arm himself to in doing so, and you start losing any possible ground in which a self defense claim could ever possibly be legitimately made. Any one of these factors should be enough to completely negate a self defense plea. The combination? Ridiculous to even suggest it as a possibility.

Any claim of self defense has to account for all of this, and justify every single element. Not in a "Rittenhouse was a panicky dangerous idiot who did incredibly stupid things because he's a moron" manner, but in a "a responsible, reasonable person would conduct themselves this way".

Hell, the fact that Rittenhouse alone reacted this way is yet more argument against the "reasonable person" option.

[postman1782]

I think it's true that the context of why he was being chased is not yet fully known, and could swing the case.

There is a witness from before the first shots that show that he was pointing his gun at random people, including the first witness. The Daily Caller "reporter" that was there with him, told Rittenhouse that he was handling his gun improperly.

[Trifle]

So do you think he's going to be convicted? I don't.

I have no confidence he'll be convicted (of the serious charges at least) because America, but from the facts that we currently know I think he absolutely should be. Also Endus' arguments are a hell of a lot more compelling than your appeals to emotion.

It is also possible that there's information that will come to light at the trial that changes things significantly too, but the current conversation is obviously only based on the facts we have available.

[Endus]

Where's the testimony about Rittenhouse provoking Rosenbaum? I didn't see that.

In the charging documents, plus a bunch of others which I've already linked, and frankly, I'm not repeating the same response to such patently bad-faith Gish Gallop tactics. Where did you get the impression it's my job to do your homework for you, particularly when I have already provided them in this thread?

You only "haven't seen that" because you actively chose to avoid looking

[Krastyn]

In the charging documents, plus a bunch of others which I've already linked, and frankly, I'm not repeating the same response to such patently bad-faith Gish Gallop tactics. Where did you get the impression it's my job to do your homework for you, particularly when I have already provided them in this thread?

You only "haven't seen that" because you actively chose to avoid looking

Per the charging document:

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

So the charging document literally states that Rosenbaum initially engaged Rittenhouse, Rittenhouse tried to disengage, and Rosenbaum and others pursued him.

[Endus]

So the charging document literally states that Rosenbaum initially engaged Rittenhouse, Rittenhouse tried to disengage, and Rosenbaum and others pursued him.

"Engage" does not mean what you apparently think it means. McGinnis wasn't saying that Rosenbaum initiated hostilities. If he'd meant something along those lines, he would have said that, and he didn't.

All that passage means is that Rosenbaum was calling out to Rittenhouse and walking in his direction. Nothing more.

Also, cutting out the passage I was referring to and trying to make it about this passage is pretty poor form.

[Krastyn]

"Engage" does not mean what you apparently think it means. McGinnis wasn't saying that Rosenbaum initiated hostilities. If he'd meant something along those lines, he would have said that, and he didn't.

All that passage means is that Rosenbaum was calling out to Rittenhouse and walking in his direction. Nothing more.

Also, cutting out the passage I was referring to and trying to make it about this passage is pretty poor form.

Keep in mind this is the plaintiff's document. You can't just say "nothing more". It says Rosenbaum made the initial interaction, then the pursuit started. Please point out now in the charging document where Rittenhouse "provoked" Rosenbaum before the pursuit happened.

[Endus]

Keep in mind this is the plaintiff's document. You can't just say "nothing more". It says Rosenbaum made the initial interaction, then the pursuit started.

It doesn't even say that.

Please point out now in the charging document where Rittenhouse "provoked" Rosenbaum before the pursuit happened.

McGinnis stated that he (McGinnis) has handled many ARs and that the defendant was not handling the weapon very well.

Not handling a weapon very well puts everyone around you at risk. Obviously. It's literally two sentences before where you chose to start your quote, which was in the middle of a paragraph so it's not like it was just a convenient chunk; you chose to exclude that.

Of course, we also have tidbits that aren't expanded on, like "statements by the defendant, which were made contrary to his penal interests", which is prosecutor-speak for "Rittenhouse was told he had the right to remain silent, but he confessed to a bunch of stuff that led to the charges being filed as they are".

[Aurrora]

It's a literal fact. You keep disputing it for some reason.

It's a fact you keep stating because you're trying to prejudice the uninformed to think he was an outsider. He was part of the community, he worked in that city. You conveniently don't seem to give a shit that the three people that attacked him all lived further from Kenosha than he did, or that people have been travelling to Kenosha from many states away to riot and commit arson.

And yet, you've never made a single argument that would provide an alternative interpretation. Not one.

Wisconsin law gives exceptions to long guns to minors over the age of 16, it's possible he fulfills these exceptions, we don't know yet. The 2nd amendment also gives him the constitutional right to bear arms in defense of his community.

If you think someone might punch you for sleeping with their girlfriend, and you make sure you've got a gun on you when you see them next so you can shoot them when they try to, that's murder, not self defense. Your choice to arm yourself makes it premeditated, first-degree murder.

That choice to arm yourself indicates premeditation.

You're arguing a specific target and a specific intent, that is not even remotely the same. By your argument no one would be allowed the right to use lethal force in self defense because being armed would be premeditation for murder. Kyle did not go to Kenosha that day expecting to take part in the protest, he did not arm himself expecting that Rosenbaum or anyone would attempt to assault and steal from him.

Wrong. Only if a reasonable person would believe that such were imminent. If your fear is unreasonable, it doesn't matter how real that fear is; that just means you're a dangerous paranoid.

It is completely reasonable that someone that is taking hostile action towards you, taking part in a mob action against you, and assaulting you attempting to take your firearm is a deadly threat to you. You're the one being unreasonable.

That's a straight-up lie. Nothing about that leads to the conclusion you're trying to draw.

It's also a lie in that it misrepresents the facts. Rosenbaum hadn't attacked Rittenhouse. He made no statements that he wanted to beat someone up. You're making shit up.

This is a lie, it's right there in the charging documents that Rosenbaum was attacking Kyle, it's also visible on video that Rosenbaum made several attempts to attack him.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KNGsixl34MI
At 7:18 You can hear Rosenbaum asking where Kyle went, he was targeting him because he had extinguished the fire they were rolling into the gas station. At 8:57 You hear him say "I say we jack them and take they guns"

They did not fire towards Kyle. That's a lie.

It also does not contribute to the threat; if Kyle had shot at the shooter, you could make that claim, maybe. But at Rosenbaum? Not justified at all.

You keep making wild assertions of completely irrational leaps as if they're justifiable. They aren't. You're describing a panicky, paranoid, violent psychopath.

They were firing towards Kyle, we can see from the video they fired in the direction of Kyle but high, Kyle had no way of knowing that they aimed above him, not at him. He turned around and found Rosenbaum charging him and attempting to take his firearm, that is a deadly threat.

[Krastyn]

It doesn't even say that.

It's literally right in the quote. I'd suggest you read it again.

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.

Rosenbaum "enganged" initially, as he got closer, Rittenhouse ran. The exact details of the "engage" will also be very relevant.

Not handling a weapon very well puts everyone around you at risk. Obviously. It's literally two sentences before where you chose to start your quote, which was in the middle of a paragraph so it's not like it was just a convenient chunk; you chose to exclude that.

Of course, we also have tidbits that aren't expanded on, like "statements by the defendant, which were made contrary to his penal interests", which is prosecutor-speak for "Rittenhouse was told he had the right to remain silent, but he confessed to a bunch of stuff that led to the charges being filed as they are".

It the opinion of McGinnis, not Rosenbaum. You're assuming, based on literally zero evidence, that is why Rosenbaum tried to engage Rittenhouse. You're seriously going to try to argue that Rosenbaum and the others chasing him were doing so because he was not handling a weapon very well? No group of reasonable people are going to believe that.

So again, you still haven't proven that Rittenhouse provoked Rosenbaum. Unless you're arguing that anytime anyone does anything that they consider to be unsafe to others, that they're allowed to chase them down.

This entire case is going to come down to whether it was reasonable for Rittenhouse had reason to fear for "bodily injury which creates a substantial risk of death, or which causes serious permanent disfigurement, or which causes a permanent or protracted loss or impairment of the function of any bodily member or organ or other serious bodily injury." (bold emphasis mine)

Will a group of people believe that if Rosebaum had taken the gun from Rittenhosue that Rittenhouse had no fear of serious bodily injury? I don't think you'll find a group of people to unanimously agree he had nothing to fear.

Everyone involved are a bunch of idiots, and no one deserved to die over this.

[Themius]

Oh look

https://www.theguardian.com/world/20...e-report-finds


93% of all blm protest were peaceful while Police used violence force in 54% of encounters.

What’s up with that?!! Oh right ACAB

[Aurrora]

The liver is actually quite close tot he right lung, and there doesn't need to be a serious angle to hit both.

- - - Updated - - -



Does the autopsy specify that the shot to the groin, left hand, and the head graze were front to back?

Or are you just assuming they are?

Cause those shots can come from all different angles. Behind, to the side, etc.

We can see that the head graze was from the front on video. You don't get shot in the groin from behind, that would be the buttocks. You can't make a determination on facing from a hand wound because it can be positioned anywhere, but him facing Kyle when he was shot in the hand is consistent with video evidence and witness testimony. McGinnis stated Rosenbaum was attempting to grab the gun when Kyle shot, and in the video we see blood splatter on Rosenbaum chest that is consistent with him being shot in the hand with it outstretched in front of him.

[Endus]

It's a fact you keep stating because you're trying to prejudice the uninformed to think he was an outsider. He was part of the community, he worked in that city.

Or that crossing state lines when committing a felony is a big deal in the USA.

You conveniently don't seem to give a shit that the three people that attacked him all lived further from Kenosha than he did, or that people have been travelling to Kenosha from many states away to riot and commit arson.

Because that would be derailing with matters not in any way relevant to this case.

By your argument no one would be allowed the right to use lethal force in self defense because being armed would be premeditation for murder.

There's a difference between arming yourself with concealed carry and resorting to that in a life-or-death situation, and arming yourself specifically to go into a situation you knew was likely to lead to violence. However much you don't want to acknowledge that.

It is completely reasonable that someone that is taking hostile action towards you, taking part in a mob action against you, and assaulting you attempting to take your firearm is a deadly threat to you. You're the one being unreasonable.

"Taking part in a mob action against you" is a lie. It was just Rosenbaum.
And no; the rest does not remotely amount to a lethal threat. Where the hell do you get the idea that disarming someone is a lethal threat to them?

This is a lie, it's right there in the charging documents that Rosenbaum was attacking Kyle, it's also visible on video that Rosenbaum made several attempts to attack him.

Pursuing is not attacking. Nor is grabbing at a weapon, really. You're trying to edit the facts.

At 7:18 You can hear Rosenbaum asking where Kyle went, he was targeting him because he had extinguished the fire they were rolling into the gas station. At 8:57 You hear him say "I say we jack them and take they guns"

Rittenhouse was not the one who put out that fire. Why are you making shit up?

They were firing towards Kyle, we can see from the video they fired in the direction of Kyle but high, Kyle had no way of knowing that they aimed above him, not at him. He turned around and found Rosenbaum charging him and attempting to take his firearm, that is a deadly threat.

You literally just contradicted yourself. If they're firing high, they're not firing at Rittenhouse.

And no; someone trying to disarm you is not a lethal threat. You can keep repeating that until you're blue in the face, but it's not ever going to be true.

It's literally right in the quote. I'd suggest you read it again.

You're confusing "tried to engage" with an interaction. It only means Rosenbaum was walking towards Rittenhouse and maybe calling out to him. That's it.

It the opinion of McGinnis, not Rosenbaum. You're assuming, based on literally zero evidence, that is why Rosenbaum tried to engage Rittenhouse.

I'm proposing it as an alternative explanation of the facts, and one that does not require me to invent anything for it to hold up. Occam's Razor, y'know. You want to argue there was something more? That's on you to prove.

You're seriously going to try to argue that Rosenbaum and the others chasing him were doing so because he was not handling a weapon very well? No group of reasonable people are going to believe that.

That protestors wouldn't try and take a weapon away from someone who kept putting them at risk with it by mishandling it?

How is that not believable?

Rosenbaum never attacked Rittenhouse. He only tried to grab his weapon.

So again, you still haven't proven that Rittenhouse provoked Rosenbaum. Unless you're arguing that anytime anyone does anything that they consider to be unsafe to others, that they're allowed to chase them down.

I don't see why you think I have to prove that. It doesn't even really matter why Rosenbaum was after Rittenhouse; he didn't pose a lethal threat.

This entire case is going to come down to whether it was reasonable for Rittenhouse had reason to fear for "bodily injury which creates a substantial risk of death, or which causes serious permanent disfigurement, or which causes a permanent or protracted loss or impairment of the function of any bodily member or organ or other serious bodily injury." (bold emphasis mine)

Will a group of people believe that if Rosebaum had taken the gun from Rittenhosue that Rittenhouse had no fear of serious bodily injury? I don't think you'll find a group of people to unanimously agree he had nothing to fear.

It really isn't that binary, on just that one point.

Did Rittenhouse do anything that could have put protesters at risk, justifying them trying to disarm him? That renders any claim of self defense impossible, since he's the instigator.
Did Rittenhouse turn himself in to the police after he'd committed a multiple homicide, or did he flee the State to evade justice? We 100% know it's the latter, here. Which is likely enough to convict on murder and defeat a self defense argument, all by itself, without even considering the rest. Not that I think any part of a self defense claim holds up, here.

[Felya]

This is pretty interesting and relevant... warning, you will start saying “nya” after it...

[Shadowferal]

Pfft...I'm already at the laughing stage when someone whom I'm sure was anti-2nd amendment said that wresting a gun from someone is a person that won't pose an immediate threat.

[Felya]

Pfft...I'm already at the laughing stage when someone whom I'm sure was anti-2nd amendment said that wresting a gun from someone is a person that won't pose an immediate threat.

What? A person that thinks a gun is threat, would try to wrestle the gun away.

[Draco-Onis]

This entire case is going to come down to whether it was reasonable for Rittenhouse had reason to fear for "bodily injury which creates a substantial risk of death, or which causes serious permanent disfigurement, or which causes a permanent or protracted loss or impairment of the function of any bodily member or organ or other serious bodily injury." (bold emphasis mine)

No because simply Rittenhouse is a vigilante with an illegal weapon in another state basically he is the aggressor just by being there. He inserted himself into a situation then bragged about not using non lethal force on video that sinks any fantasy self defense argument he has. He isn't a cop nor does he have any credentials that give him any rights heck he doesn't live in the state so he can't claim stand your ground.