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

[Pipebomb]

What’s True — and False — About the Victims’ Criminal Histories
The viral claims alleging unlawful behavior by Huber, Rosenbaum, and Grosskreutz before the Kenosha shooting were a mixture of truth and falsehoods.

For example, yes, Rosenbaum was found guilty of engaging in “sexual conduct with a minor” in Arizona’s Pima County in March 2002, almost two decades before his death, according to an online database of prison inmates in Arizona, via the state’s department of corrections. Per that online portal, he was sentenced to prison or parole for roughly 15 years. The state’s law defines the felony offense as “intentionally or knowingly engaging in sexual intercourse or oral sexual contact with any person who is under eighteen (18) years of age,” though we could not confirm the details of Rosenbaum’s case. We requested copies of probable-cause statements from the Pima County Superior Court’s Office, and we will update this report when or if we hear back.

Considering that evidence, the claim that Rosenbaum at one point was convicted of sexually abusing at least one child before his death was true.

Next, we analyzed criminal records involving Huber, and determined it also accurate to state he was charged with domestic abuse. We uncovered a Kenosha County criminal complaint that outlined his first serious run-in with law enforcement, in December 2012. And per that complaint, Huber, who was 18 years old at the time, threatened his brother and grandmother at their home with a knife, choked the brother, and demanded that they follow his orders. The complaint said the brother wanted to take Huber to a hospital, apparently for emergency mental health help, but Huber resisted. In the end, he was charged with strangulation and suffocation and false imprisonment, both of which are felony crimes.

On another occasion, about three years later, Huber paid a roughly $150 citation or possessing drug paraphernalia, court records showed. Then, in 2018, Huber was charged with disorderly conduct, a misdemeanor offense, after a fight with his sister at their house, per a criminal complaint by Kenosha prosecutors.

But unlike what many Rittenhouse supporters claimed, we could find no court evidence that Huber had sexually assaulted anyone.

Also false was the assertion that all three of the teenager’s victims were felons. Grosskreutz had not committed a felony crime, our analysis of court records showed.

He was, however, found guilty in 2016 of breaking Wisconsin’s law governing the use of dangerous weapons — a misdemeanor offense — per Milwaukee County court records. He had apparently gone somewhere “armed while intoxicated,” though the court records did not elaborate on what exactly had happened. Snopes requested a copy of the probable cause statement from county records administrators, but we have not yet obtained it.

Additionally, Grosskreutz at various points received tickets for minor offenses including disobeying police officers and making loud noises, the court records showed. However, no evidence showed he had indeed committed burglary, like supporters of the alleged killer claimed, though he had been arrested on suspicion of the crime in 2012. The felony charge was later dismissed, per Wisconsin Department of Justice’s criminal data.

In the interview with CNN, Grosskreutz said he has paid his debt for his past crimes and that he had every right to carry a gun at the Aug. 25 protest. “I’m not a felon,” he said. “I had a legal right to possess [a firearm] and to possess it concealed.”

yikes . . .

[postman1782]

It doesn't matter if he almost shot the reporter, because he is allowed to cause collateral damage short of death when using his firearm in self defense. That charge disappears when it is determined that he lawfully shot Rosenbaum in self defense.

"The privilege of self-defense extends not only to the intentional infliction of harm upon a real or apparent wrongdoer, but also to the unintended infliction of harm upon a 3rd person, except that if the unintended infliction of harm amounts to the crime of first-degree or 2nd-degree reckless homicide, homicide by negligent handling of dangerous weapon, explosives or fire, first-degree or 2nd-degree reckless injury or injury by negligent handling of dangerous weapon, explosives or fire, the actor is liable for whichever one of those crimes is committed."

Wrong. Because he didn't lawfully shoot Rosenbaum. And you don't lose the reckless endangerment charge because he defended himself.

- - - Updated - - -

yikes . . .

Did you post this for something? It is the Snopes article, yes, and I don't know why you are saying Yikes to it when it is true.

[Aurrora]

Wrong. Because he didn't lawfully shoot Rosenbaum. And you don't lose the reckless endangerment charge because he defended himself.

Eyewitness statement from the reporter says Rosenbaum was attacking him and grabbed his weapon, so yes it's lawful self defense. And yes, you do lose the reckless endangerment charge, that's exactly what the law on self defense says.

[Shalcker]

that pinkerton is going to get a slap on the wrist for not having a city license right?

He is not even employed by them apparently, he is contractor from another company.

Companies shielding themselves by having everything contracted away...

[postman1782]

Eyewitness statement from the reporter says Rosenbaum was attacking him and grabbed his weapon, so yes it's lawful self defense. And yes, you do lose the reckless endangerment charge, that's exactly what the law on self defense says.

Well, VIDEO shows that Rosenbaum never touched him or his weapon. I have posted it in this thread already. Let me see if I can find it.

Here it is: https://www.reddit.com/r/ActualPubli..._shooting_two/

You can CLEARLY see that no one gets even close to touching his gun or him. AND, I will state this again, the DC "Reporter" saw Rittenhouse handling his gun poorly, by his own words in the charging document. And we have another witness that says that Rittenhouse pointed his gun at the witness/victim while he was trying to go to his car. That is assault with a deadly weapon in some states, brandishing a weapon in others. You cannot claim self defense in the process of committing a crime in the first place.

If he is reacting to the shot being fired into the air, thinking that Rosenbaum was the guy that shot, then he loses self-defense and goes to jail for the rest of his life. Especially since he was already committing a crime by even possessing the gun.

[Endus]

Eyewitness statement from the reporter says Rosenbaum was attacking him and grabbed his weapon, so yes it's lawful self defense. And yes, you do lose the reckless endangerment charge, that's exactly what the law on self defense says.

It literally is not. You're lying.

Wisconsin law explicitly states that use of lethal force in self defense is forbidden, and I quote, "unless the actor reasonably believes that such force is necessary to prevent imminent death or great bodily harm to himself or herself."

Someone grabbing at your weapon cannot be reasonably construed as such. If you make that case, then any time a police officer or good samaritan tries to disarm a violent criminal, they can legitimately be shot in self defense by said criminal. Which is obviously insane.

- - - Updated - - -

Well, VIDEO shows that Rosenbaum never touched him or his weapon. I have posted it in this thread already. Let me see if I can find it.

Here it is: https://www.reddit.com/r/ActualPubli..._shooting_two/

You can CLEARLY see that no one gets even close to touching his gun or him. AND, I will state this again, the DC "Reporter" saw Rittenhouse handling his gun poorly, by his own words in the charging document. And we have another witness that says that Rittenhouse pointed his gun at the witness/victim while he was trying to go to his car. That is assault with a deadly weapon in some states, brandishing a weapon in others. You cannot claim self defense in the process of committing a crime in the first place.

If he is reacting to the shot being fired into the air, thinking that Rosenbaum was the guy that shot, then he loses self-defense and goes to jail for the rest of his life. Especially since he was already committing a crime by even possessing the gun.

It bears repeating that the charging documents clearly cite Rittenhouse's own testimony to officers against himself, though they don't specify exactly what was said. Which, before anyone says it, is not dishonest; that's for disclosure procedures with his defense team, not the charging documents themselves. Plus, we can presume the suspect knows what he said, so it's not some big secret to his defense team.

[Edge-]

yikes . . .

https://www.snopes.com/news/2020/09/...ctims-records/

You know, it would help if you linked to what you were copy/pasting. And if you provided the context in the IMMEDIATE next paragraph -

The Victims’ Criminal Past ‘Have No Bearing on Them Being Shot’

As of this writing, Rittenhouse was set to make his next court appearance on Sept. 25, and no court proceedings have called attention to the criminal histories of his alleged victims.

Threads on Facebook, Twitter, Reddit and other social media sites for Americans on the far political right, as well as white supremacists and armed militias, were a different story, however. Those type of discussions were not unusual; onlookers of high-profile, controversial killings often focus on the criminal records of the victims, no matter the relevance of that history.

Kyle Rittenhouse shot a sex offender , a domestic abuser and an armed communist.
The kid is only 17 and he’s completed half my bucket list.

— The People's Cube ������������ (@ThePeoplesCube) August 27, 2020

The phenomenon is particularly prevalent when authorities kill non-white people; for example, conservative corners of the internet focused on Floyd’s alleged criminal background after his death, which sparked a civil rights movement, and the rapsheet of another Black man, Rayshard Brooks, after a white Atlanta police officer fatally shot him in a Wendy’s parking lot in June 2020.

Psychologists have said the strategy — whether intentional or not — of shifting focus away from questionable violence and onto the past unlawful behavior of victims makes it easy for people to subscribe to the “they had it coming” trope and justify deaths or injuries.

In response to that campaign, The Milwaukee Journal Sentinel released a statement on Sept. 1 in which it explained why the newspaper had not reported on the victims’ past legal records. The statement read:

There is no evidence so far that the backgrounds of the three victims — Anthony Huber, Joseph Rosenbaum and Gaige Grosskreutz — had anything to do with the clashes that led to the deaths of Huber and Rosenbaum and the wounding of Grosskreutz.

They are the victims of a shooting, and as far as we can tell their past legal records have no bearing on them being shot during a protest.

If more facts emerge that show their backgrounds are relevant to what happened that night in Kenosha, we would revisit our decision. For instance, if there is evidence that any of the victims’ backgrounds could have affected their interactions with Rittenhouse, or if he knew anything about them before the shooting.

Please sit back down, you're not very good at defending murderers.

[Noxx79]

I think you replied to the wrong person.

Yeah looks like, sorry

[BlackDruid96]

Well, VIDEO shows that Rosenbaum never touched him or his weapon. I have posted it in this thread already. Let me see if I can find it.

Here it is: https://www.reddit.com/r/ActualPubli..._shooting_two/

You can CLEARLY see that no one gets even close to touching his gun or him. AND, I will state this again, the DC "Reporter" saw Rittenhouse handling his gun poorly, by his own words in the charging document. And we have another witness that says that Rittenhouse pointed his gun at the witness/victim while he was trying to go to his car. That is assault with a deadly weapon in some states, brandishing a weapon in others. You cannot claim self defense in the process of committing a crime in the first place.

If he is reacting to the shot being fired into the air, thinking that Rosenbaum was the guy that shot, then he loses self-defense and goes to jail for the rest of his life. Especially since he was already committing a crime by even possessing the gun.

If someone made verbal threats at you and charges at you with intent to harm you don't have to wait for them to hit you before you defend yourself. Kyle clearly tried to de-escalate the situation by running from Rosenbaum, but Rosenbaum gave case. Mark my words, in a competent trial, Kyle won't get convicted for murder, worst he will get is possession.

[Edge-]

If someone made verbal threats at you and charges at you with intent to harm you don't have to wait for them to hit you before you defend yourself.

Nobody has argued this.

Kyle clearly tried to de-escalate the situation by running from Rosenbaum, but Rosenbaum gave case.

To which, for the bajillionth time, an unarmed man chasing you does not warrant the use of deadly force.

Mark my words, in a competent trial, Kyle won't get convicted for murder, worst he will get is possession.

Of an illegal firearm, not drugs, right? We'll see, but I'd imagine that his having an illegal firearm in another state where he went to a city to "protect" property without being invited by the owners and the witness accounts that he was handling his weapon poorly (including pointing it at people) might not make it such an open and shut case.

[DingDongKing]

Can I just ask why people are so keen for Rittenhouse to be innocent of 'murder'? Will it validate the violence committed by him and others? Will it make the protests any less valid? Will it bring justice for people affected by systemic racism? Will any of it matter if the society is divided?

[Endus]

If someone made verbal threats at you and charges at you with intent to harm you don't have to wait for them to hit you before you defend yourself.

1> As Edge- said, nobody's argued that.
2> There's literally no evidence of such "verbal threats" by Rosenbaum.
3> Also, literally no evidence of Rosenbaum's "intent to harm".
4> You'd be hard-pressed to use verbal threats and running towards you as an example of "[reasonable belief] that such force is necessary to prevent imminent death or great bodily harm to himself or herself."

Kyle clearly tried to de-escalate the situation by running from Rosenbaum, but Rosenbaum gave case. Mark my words, in a competent trial, Kyle won't get convicted for murder, worst he will get is possession.

You can't call it "de-escalation" when Rittenhouse escalated a situation from a non-violent one to a multiple homicide.

That's not even up for debate. That's a literal fact.

- - - Updated - - -

Can I just ask why people are so keen for Rittenhouse to be innocent of 'murder'? Will it validate the violence committed by him and others? Will it make the protests any less valid? Will it bring justice for people affected by systemic racism? Will any of it matter if the society is divided?

Near as I can tell, it's an attempt to set up precedent for pre-emptively shooting left-wing protesters, "just in case". A convenient first step in the march towards wholesale fascist cleansing of dissidence.

They're trying to establish the groundwork for another Night of Long Knives, basically.

[Felya]

Mark my words, in a competent trial, Kyle won't get convicted for murder, worst he will get is possession.

This just means you are prepared with an excuse, if the trial ends the way you don’t want. You are the only competent judge... so was Rittenhouse...

[DingDongKing]

-snip-

So basically just setting up a bit of justified murder. Got it. 'They asked for it'.

[Edge-]

https://www.propublica.org/article/n...antifa-suspect

It might never be possible to determine exactly what happened in the estimated 15 seconds of gunfire that left Reinoehl dead, because the men who shot him were not wearing body cameras, the surrounding buildings lacked security cameras, and three people who witnessed critical segments of the shooting have not been interviewed by police.

All. Cops. Need. Body. Cameras.

[BlackDruid96]

So basically just setting up a bit of justified murder. Got it. 'They asked for it'.

Did Kyle asked to be attacked?

[Endus]

https://www.propublica.org/article/n...antifa-suspect

All. Cops. Need. Body. Cameras.

They just need no benefit of any doubt.

Arguing that a homicide is justified should be an affirmative defense, regardless of whether you're a cop or a private citizen. You need to present the facts that make it more likely than not that you were justified. If you don't have body camera footage to back you up, well, tough nuts, you're going down for Murder 2.

If you had a camera and it wasn't turned on, then the courts should take that as clear evidence of mens rea, all by itself.

Did Kyle asked to be attacked?

"Chased". Not "attacked".

Rosenbaum never laid a finger on Rittenhouse.

And the witness testimony states that Rittenhouse was handling his weapon incompetently, which would have put everyone else nearby at risk. So yes; he did "ask" to be disarmed, in such a circumstance.

[DingDongKing]

-snip-

I've got the second poster you quoted on ignore. I'm assuming he was asking me, but yes. He wasn't touched. But that's how gun toters work.

'He thought about doing something or may have just approached me, so I shot him. I don't wear a mask during a pandemic, because fuck safety'.

[Krakan]

Can I just ask why people are so keen for Rittenhouse to be innocent of 'murder'? Will it validate the violence committed by him and others? Will it make the protests any less valid? Will it bring justice for people affected by systemic racism? Will any of it matter if the society is divided?

It would go far to protecting the right to defending yourself. If that law is eroded bit by bit I believe people will suffer for it. This seems a painfully clear case of self defense by most reasonable people and if it is deemed that being chased and cornered is not justification for self defense I would honestly want to see what their definition is.

Do you need a knife stabbed three inches into you any less its murder? I believe there needs to be protections in place to protect victims of violent crimes.

- - - Updated - - -

Did the first person he shot ask to be shot?

Actually yes... he is recorded shouting "shoot me nigga, shoot me nigga" earlier...

It's ironic I admit but yes the person actually asked to be shot.

[Edge-]

This seems a painfully clear case of self defense by most reasonable people and if it is deemed that being chased and cornered is not justification for self defense I would honestly want to see what their definition is.

Reasonable people like who?

Do you need a knife stabbed three inches into you any less its murder? I believe there needs to be protections in place to protect victims of violent crimes.

No, but an armed assailant would count. The dude he shot was unarmed though.