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

[Krakan]

The less lethal option was to stay home. It wasn't his fight, he wasn't asked there, he was there illegally, and he committed multiple crimes while there.

The first thing they teach you in gun safety is to always assume your gun is loaded. The second is don't pull the trigger if you're not ready to kill whatever you're aiming at.

I mean the rioters could of stayed home as well and not charged someone armed...

- - - Updated - - -

If you don't have a non-lethal force option, when confronted by a threat that does not rise to a threat of death or grievous bodily harm, you do not have a use-of-force option. Period. You do not get to default to lethal force.

And that's a statement I make which is internally ridiculous, because the fact is that you do always have less-than-lethal options for self defense. Always.

Also, that middle bit, where you talk about the requirements for lethal or non-lethal force being the same "for a civilian"; that's just wrong. Lethal force requires a significantly more extreme level of threat to be justified.



This is just obviously false.

That term has a specific meaning under the law. If Rosenbaum was going to smack Rittenhouse around a bunch and leave him beaten and bruised, that is not "great bodily harm" under the legal description of that term. You have absolutely no basis for claiming Rosenbaum even posed that level of threat, let alone a greater one.



"I'm gonna lose a fight" is not grounds for lethal force.

Where the hell are you getting this bullshit? It's absolutely fucking ridiculous and does not stem from any legal understanding whatsoever. It's directly contradicted by the law I've already cited. Stop making up complete nonsense to defend a multiple murderer.

This only works if you know your assailant wont turn your weapon you.

When in doubt don't risk it given his attackers criminal record know after the fact it isn't likely he would of shown restraint.

[Endus]

This only works if you know your assailant wont turn your weapon you.

When in doubt don't risk it given his attackers criminal record know after the fact it isn't likely he would of shown restraint.

Wild fantasies about what might happen in a possible future are not arguments that apply to a legal defense in court for your actions.

It just means you're delusional.

What you're describing, here, is how a murderer thinks and rationalizes. Yeah, we get that's what he was thinking. That's his motive for committing murder. It is not a defense.

[Krakan]

Wild fantasies about what might happen in a possible future are not arguments that apply to a legal defense in court for your actions.

It just means you're delusional.

What you're describing, here, is how a murderer thinks and rationalizes. Yeah, we get that's what he was thinking. That's his motive for committing murder. It is not a defense.

It isn't that wild to assume the man who is part of a terrorist organization by definition attacking you won't go all in like they have in the past. They have a record of beating people who protect their property to death from past riots.

The rioters not the individual.

[Endus]

It isn't that wild to assume the man who is part of a terrorist organization by definition attacking you won't go all in like they have in the past. They have a record of beating people who protect their property to death from past riots.

The rioters not the individual.

Again, you're talking about wild imaginings, where you fantasize the grounds that let you justify killing someone, to yourself.

This is how murderers rationalize their crimes to themselves. It is not a legal defense. You are describing motive for murder.

And that's overlooking the horseshit about "terrorist organizations", which you're making the fuck up if you're talking about Black Lives Matter, to push a white supremacist agenda.

[Krakan]

Again, you're talking about wild imaginings, where you fantasize the grounds that let you justify killing someone, to yourself.

This is how murderers rationalize their crimes to themselves. It is not a legal defense. You are describing motive for murder.

And that's overlooking the horseshit about "terrorist organizations", which you're making the fuck up if you're talking about Black Lives Matter, to push a white supremacist agenda.

How so? We have hours of footage from Wisconsin and the other cities they burned down when not met with resistance.... blm sets something on fire the evil milita puts it out with extinguishers. BLM attacks people and tragically pay the price for it the milita protects local business. BLM steals shit constantly and even used a mans suicide the next day to continue doing so... while the next day the milita is thanked for their service...

I want to ask you a honest question. Do you truely believe that all this footage recorded live usually by BLM members is simply racist propaganda or do you think that at some point reality just doesn't fit the narrative your told?

Now I could be wrong and it just so happens that everything recorded seemingly at random isnt a fair representation but after 80 days of riots lives lost and damage around the billion I am tired of playing pretend.

[Endus]

How so? We have hours of footage from Wisconsin and the other cities they burned down when not met with resistance.... blm sets something on fire the evil milita puts it out with extinguishers. BLM attacks people and tragically pay the price for it the milita protects local business. BLM steals shit constantly and even used a mans suicide the next day to continue doing so... while the next day the milita is thanked for their service...

Because that's not BLM. That's individual rioters.

Stop pushing racist propanda bullshit as if it were truth.

I want to ask you a honest question. Do you truely believe that all this footage recorded live usually by BLM members is simply racist propaganda or do you think that at some point reality just doesn't fit the narrative your told?

I know, full well, that the footage is being misrepresented and that wide aspersions are being cast to push racist propaganda.

That's not a guess. It's observable.

Especially when you're trying to distract from a multiple murder by redirecting anger to property damage. That's what you're doing, right here. I see you doing it. Screw that. Stop defending and supporting murderers, dude.

[Krakan]

Because that's not BLM. That's individual rioters.

Stop pushing racist propanda bullshit as if it were truth.



I know, full well, that the footage is being misrepresented and that wide aspersions are being cast to push racist propaganda.

That's not a guess. It's observable.

Especially when you're trying to distract from a multiple murder by redirecting anger to property damage. That's what you're doing, right here. I see you doing it. Screw that. Stop defending and supporting murderers, dude.

If a group of nazis ran through a city burned and looted it and did so in five other cities would you come here and say " well it's not the nazis its individual rioters"

Not all of us can just hand wave away the reality of the situation because our political ideology allows us to.

Self defense isn't murder and yes I know we will not agree on this.

[draynay]

If a group of nazis

Jesus Christ... this shit again? Argue about what actually happened, get out of here with outlandish hypotheticals.

[Endus]

If a group of nazis ran through a city burned and looted it and did so in five other cities would you come here and say " well it's not the nazis its individual rioters"

The damage would be from those individuals.

It would be informed by their ideology, which is explicitly and deliberately abusive and violent.

Trying to equate that to Black Lives Matter, which ideologically is just "black people and their lives should not be valued any less than anyone else" in terms of ideology, is unadulteratedly racist in motivation. What the hell do you think you're going to gain with that kind of blatantly false equivalence?

Not all of us can just hand wave away the reality of the situation because our political ideology allows us to.

You're not talking about any "reality". You're making up nonsense to justify denying black citizens fair and equitable consideration in society. That's literally what you're speaking out against, here.

Self defense isn't murder and yes I know we will not agree on.

Because Rittenhouse wasn't acting in self defense. As is made obvious with basically all the video footage.

[Krakan]

The damage would be from those individuals.

It would be informed by their ideology, which is explicitly and deliberately abusive and violent.

Trying to equate that to Black Lives Matter, which ideologically is just "black people and their lives should not be valued any less than anyone else" in terms of ideology, is unadulteratedly racist in motivation. What the hell do you think you're going to gain with that kind of blatantly false equivalence?



You're not talking about any "reality". You're making up nonsense to justify denying black citizens fair and equitable consideration in society. That's literally what you're speaking out against, here.



Because Rittenhouse wasn't acting in self defense. As is made obvious with basically all the video footage.

I think that after 80 days of rioting , looting , and arson not perpetuated by a small number of people but hundreds over that time frame with a fair percentage of it caught in film. I would rather judge a man by the conduct of his character then whatever moral message he may say.

I mean we are at the point where a suspected murder to cowardly to face judgement took his own life and they used it as an excuse to start looting and setting fires again you can look up Minneapolis yesterday to see it.

Whatever good this movement started out trying to do its failed as it rotted out and became nothing more but an excuse for thugs to act with near impunity.
[Infraction]

[Zeth Hawkins]

It appears Rittenhouse may have not broken any laws regarding possession or transport of the rifle.

https://docs.legis.wisconsin.gov/sta...tutes/948/60/1

--"In this section, “dangerous weapon" means any firearm, loaded or unloaded; any electric weapon, as defined in s. 941.295 (1c) (a); metallic knuckles or knuckles of any substance which could be put to the same use with the same or similar effect as metallic knuckles; a nunchaku or any similar weapon consisting of 2 sticks of wood, plastic or metal connected at one end by a length of rope, chain, wire or leather; a cestus or similar material weighted with metal or other substance and worn on the hand; a shuriken or any similar pointed star-like object intended to injure a person when thrown; or a manrikigusari or similar length of chain having weighted ends."
--"Any person under 18 years of age who possesses or goes armed with a dangerous weapon is guilty of a Class A misdemeanor."
--"This section applies only to a person under 18 years of age who possesses or is armed with a rifle or a shotgun if the person is in violation of s. 941.28 or is not in compliance with ss. 29.304 and 29.593"

https://docs.legis.wisconsin.gov/sta...tes/941/III/28

--“Short-barreled rifle" means a rifle having one or more barrels having a length of less than 16 inches measured from closed breech or bolt face to muzzle or a rifle having an overall length of less than 26 inches."
--"No person may sell or offer to sell, transport, purchase, possess or go armed with a short-barreled shotgun or short-barreled rifle."

Due to the length of the rifle and its barrel, and with Rittenhouse being 17 years old, Rittenhouse seems to be in the clear in Wisconsin.

ss. 29.304 and 29.593 strictly regard hunting, and only apply to those age 16 and under.

I am realizing this might be "gun control thread" territory, but it is pertinent to the discussion of the Kenosha events. I will at least refrain from commenting on the morality or sense of these laws.

[Endus]

I think that after 80 days of rioting , looting , and arson not perpetuated by a small number of people but hundreds over that time frame with a fair percentage of it caught in film. I would rather judge a man by the conduct of his character then whatever moral message he may say.

The BLM movement numbers in the hundreds of thousands if not millions.

You're trying to slander them for the actions of those few.

That's the irrational, prejudiced nonsense.

Whatever good this movement started out trying to do its failed as it rotted out and became nothing more but an excuse for thugs to act with near impunity.

Aand here we go with the coded dogwhistle language.

You've let the mask slip right off.

[Krakan]

The BLM movement numbers in the hundreds of thousands if not millions.

You're trying to slander them for the actions of those few.

That's the irrational, prejudiced nonsense.



Aand here we go with the coded dogwhistle language.

You've let the mask slip right off.

I am talking about the BLM riots specifically. I have no issues with the grassroot movement but these riots can not be allowed to use that sentiment to continue on how they have been. What has happened over these months isn't defendable and if yesterday was any indication is only growing more absurd. At some point it has to actually be addressed and not hand waved away as " a few bad apples" no other group would EVER be given this much slack.

[Endus]

I am talking about the BLM riots specifically.

I frankly do not care what goalposts you want to move after the fact.

That's not the position you started with. You started by claiming BLM was a domestic terror organization.

I have no issues with the grassroot movement but these riots can not be allowed to use that sentiment to continue on how they have been. What has happened over these months isn't defendable and if yesterday was any indication is only growing more absurd. At some point it has to actually be addressed and not hand waved away as " a few bad apples" no other group would EVER be given this much slack.

You are just blaming the victims, here. Literally, that's all you're doing. It's okay to you that Rittenhouse murdered two men and maimed another, because you don't politically support what they're doing.

[Elegiac]

I am talking about the BLM riots specifically. I have no issues with the grassroot movement but these riots can not be allowed to use that sentiment to continue on how they have been. What has happened over these months isn't defendable and if yesterday was any indication is only growing more absurd. At some point it has to actually be addressed and not hand waved away as " a few bad apples" no other group would EVER be given this much slack.

Except police, as y'all have evidenced throughout this entire thread.

Also, hello everyone: I see said thread is still chockers with Europeans with Opinions™ about American police that only seem to be supported by questionable social media posts.

[eschatological]

It appears Rittenhouse may have not broken any laws regarding possession or transport of the rifle.

https://docs.legis.wisconsin.gov/sta...tutes/948/60/1


https://docs.legis.wisconsin.gov/sta...tes/941/III/28

Due to the length of the rifle and its barrel, and with Rittenhouse being 17 years old, Rittenhouse seems to be in the clear in Wisconsin.

ss. 29.304 and 29.593 strictly regard hunting, and only apply to those age 16 and under.

I am realizing this might be "gun control thread" territory, but it is pertinent to the discussion of the Kenosha events. I will at least refrain from commenting on the morality or sense of these laws.

You're misquoting the law. More likely, you're probably quoting someone else who is deliberately misquoting the law.

The law applies if there's a violation of 941.29 OR (29.304 AND 29.593).

Perhaps he doesn't violate 941.29. That's basically a statute against sawed-off barrels. That means he has to be in compliance with both 29.304 AND 29.593.

Only 29.304 talks about age, not both sections.

29.593 says, in full

29.593  Requirement for certificate of accomplishment to obtain hunting approval.
(1) 
(a) Except as provided under subs. (2), (2m) and (3), and s. 29.592 (1), no person born on or after January 1, 1973, may obtain any approval authorizing hunting unless the person is issued a certificate of accomplishment under s. 29.591.
(b) A certificate of accomplishment issued to a person for successfully completing the course under the bow hunter education program only authorizes the person to obtain a resident archer hunting license, a nonresident archer hunting license, a resident crossbow hunting license, or a nonresident crossbow hunting license.
29.593(2)(2) A person who has a certificate, license, or other evidence that is satisfactory to the department indicating that he or she has successfully completed in another state, country, or province a hunter education course recognized by the department may obtain an approval authorizing hunting.
(2m) A person who has a certificate, license, or other evidence that is satisfactory to the department indicating that he or she has successfully completed in another state, country, or province a bow hunter education course recognized by the department may obtain an archer hunting license or crossbow hunting license.
(3) A person who successfully completes basic training in the U.S. armed forces, reserves or national guard may obtain an approval authorizing hunting.
(4) A person who is subject to sub. (1) may prove compliance with sub. (1) when submitting an application for an approval authorizing hunting by presenting any of the following:
(a) His or her certificate of accomplishment issued under s. 29.591.
(b) An approval authorizing hunting that was issued to him or her under this chapter within 365 days before submitting the application.
(c) An approval authorizing hunting that was issued to him or her under this chapter for a hunting season that ended within 365 days before submitting the application.

What this does is carve out a hunting exception for kids between 16-18, as long as they've been approved by Wisconsin and have a hunting license. While the section is about gaining certification for hunting approval, in conjunction with 948.60, the 18 year old is in violation if he's not in compliance with the above statute.

So unless young Kyle had a hunting license in Wisconsin, he is in violation of 948.60.

[Krakan]

I frankly do not care what goalposts you want to move after the fact.

That's not the position you started with. You started by claiming BLM was a domestic terror organization.



You are just blaming the victims, here. Literally, that's all you're doing. It's okay to you that Rittenhouse murdered two men and maimed another, because you don't politically support what they're doing.

Yes by definition the riots are they are resorting to violence to further their political goals. The nobility of those goals does not change that fact.

If you attack someone you have the right to defend yourself. Yes your country is different but that is the crux of it.

- - - Updated - - -

Except police, as y'all have evidenced throughout this entire thread.

Also, hello everyone: I see said thread is still chockers with Europeans with Opinions™ about American police that only seem to be supported by questionable social media posts.

I must of missed the police rioting... what town/city was that in?

[Elegiac]

Yes by definition the riots are they are resorting to violence to further their political goals. The nobility of those goals does not change that fact.

If you attack someone you have the right to defend yourself. Yes your country is different but that is the crux of it.

I agree. The protesters had every right to defend themselves against this kid's little Y'all Qaeda performance.

[Krakan]

I agree. The protesters had every right to defend themselves against this kid's little Y'all Qaeda performance.

Of course they do. No one is arguing they don't if they were attacked rather then attacking it wouldn't be an issue.

[Endus]

Of course they do. No one is arguing they don't if they were attacked rather then attacking it wouldn't be an issue.

And yet, how many pages deep are we so far?

Rittenhouse was the one who attacked first. By shooting a man in the head. And then fleeing the scene, and shooting two more people who tried to stop him. And then fled the state.