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

[Lorgar Aurelian]

Just gonna post this here as the other thread was closed as soon as I finished typing and it applies to this one to.

No there isn't. Of course you will increase your chances if you are person with a criminal record, armed, a threat to the public and refuse to obey a lawful order. If you take the number of police officers who interact with the public and then the number where officers where guilty of misconduct, you will see the chances are very, very low of having a issue.

But because of political reasons, some like to blow the misconduct of police officers way the hell out of proportion. It does exist. But not to the extreme some want to claim. The protesters are looking for excuses to loot, plunder and act violently. I think some of them find it exciting and can be rewarding by stealing stuff.

Compare America to the rest of the First world world it out paces most country’s on police killings (rather it was justified or not) an insanely huge prison population and this last one is just guess as I don’t feel like looking it up but I’d guess it has far more misconduct reports.

The numbers don’t lie either the police are just worse then most of the first world and have a system made to support them even when they are in the wrong or America’s are the worse people on the planet and the police are totally justified for cracking down on them so much harder. These are the only to opinions you have to pick one.

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/List...ers_by_country

[Shalcker]

No it hinges on an carrying an illegal weapon and crossing atTe lines twice with daid lines. I've seen the video if he felt threatened by what happened, he should nor be allowed to carry.

By current claims he didn't cross state lines with that weapon and was given it by lawful owner of that weapon on the spot.

Thus the only argument can be given here is that he was not allowed to carry it even if given by lawful owner, which is quite weak accusation.

[Zinstorm]

The law does not recognize any such characterization.



I'll do you one better.

It's the same argument as a bar fight. If you get cold-cocked by a guy looking to start trouble, and your response is to pull out your gun and shoot him in the head, you're a dangerous murderer. It does not matter that the other guy struck first.

And I'll note that, in Rittenhouse's case, there is no evidence suggesting Rosenbaum attacked him. And plenty of witness evidence saying Rittenhouse was putting innocent people at risk with his weapon, which would have warranted Rosenbaum (or anyone) disarming him.

.............Reading this post reminded me of the Michael Drejka case. For those who don't remember he was arguing/yelling at a woman over a parking spot (I think she parked in a handicap spot while not being handicapped). Her husband seeing what he thought was his wife being threatened came up and pushed him into the ground. Michael then pulled out his gun and shot the husband... killing him (when the gun was drawn the guy started to back away... but Michael shot him anyway).

If I remember correctly... that state had a stand your ground law.... and he still got convicted for manslaughter over it. Given that... I'm struggling very much seeing how when it comes down to it how people can not see that Kyle should face conviction for this. Only way I can see it is if you use the fact that he is a minor.... (and thus his poor judgement from the fact that he is a minor should be taken into consideration) and I don't think that is enough to justify the 3 victims not seeing justice done.

[cubby]

.............Reading this post reminded me of the Michael Drejka case. For those who don't remember he was arguing/yelling at a woman over a parking spot (I think she parked in a handicap spot while not being handicapped). Her husband seeing what he thought was his wife being threatened came up and pushed him into the ground. Michael then pulled out his gun and shot the husband... killing him (when the gun was drawn the guy started to back away... but Michael shot him anyway).

If I remember correctly... that state had a stand your ground law.... and he still got convicted for manslaughter over it. Given that... I'm struggling very much seeing how when it comes down to it how people can not see that Kyle should face conviction for this. Only way I can see it is if you use the fact that he is a minor.... (and thus his poor judgement from the fact that he is a minor should be taken into consideration) and I don't think that is enough to justify the 3 victims not seeing justice done.

Because people aren't looking at it logically or through objective eyes. It was almost immediately politicized, and the side defending Rittenhouse cares nothing for law or order or rules or decency, they only care about their skin color - and because of that, they take an illogical and unfounded position, and come up with ways to defend it, rather than looking at events as they transpired, and drawing their conclusion afterwards.

They decided before they looked.

[Shalcker]

Because people aren't looking at it logically or through objective eyes. It was almost immediately politicized, and the side defending Rittenhouse cares nothing for law or order or rules or decency, they only care about their skin color - and because of that, they take an illogical and unfounded position, and come up with ways to defend it, rather than looking at events as they transpired, and drawing their conclusion afterwards.

What skin color has to do with it? All Rittenhouse victims and he himself are white.

[cubby]

What skin color has to do with it? All Rittenhouse victims and he himself are white.

Everything. Literally.

[josykay]

By current claims he didn't cross state lines with that weapon and was given it by lawful owner of that weapon on the spot.

Thus the only argument can be given here is that he was not allowed to carry it even if given by lawful owner, which is quite weak accusation.

Doesn't that statement just throw another person, the actuall gunwoner into the pit, since he now has knowingly distributed a weapon to somebody knowing, he is likely committing crime? That gun owner has made himself accessoiry of murder. Great job.

.............Reading this post reminded me of the Michael Drejka case. For those who don't remember he was arguing/yelling at a woman over a parking spot (I think she parked in a handicap spot while not being handicapped). Her husband seeing what he thought was his wife being threatened came up and pushed him into the ground. Michael then pulled out his gun and shot the husband... killing him (when the gun was drawn the guy started to back away... but Michael shot him anyway).

If I remember correctly... that state had a stand your ground law.... and he still got convicted for manslaughter over it. Given that... I'm struggling very much seeing how when it comes down to it how people can not see that Kyle should face conviction for this. Only way I can see it is if you use the fact that he is a minor.... (and thus his poor judgement from the fact that he is a minor should be taken into consideration) and I don't think that is enough to justify the 3 victims not seeing justice done.

The self defense claim, if I remember correctly, was rejected, because Dreijka had a history of escalating situations like that, including drawing weapons, multiple times at that point already, where just so far nobody has died. If you are provoking and escalating the situation, self defense does not stick

[Shalcker]

Everything. Literally.

How can in-white conflict be about "skin color"?

Do you think that all defenders of Kyle are supporters of "we must secure .. future for white children" or something?

That would be pretty strange take, given that even this thread had videos posted with Kyle-supporting (or at least "self-defence supporting") people of colour.

- - - Updated - - -

Doesn't that statement just throw another person, the actuall gunwoner into the pit, since he now has knowingly distributed a weapon to somebody knowing, he is likely committing crime? That gun owner has made himself accessoiry of murder. Great job.

He only has himself to blame there.

Ownership of weapons isn't exactly hard to check in investigation, so it's not like denying it would do any good.

[josykay]

He only has himself to blame there.

Ownership of weapons isn't exactly hard to check in investigation, so it's not like denying it would do any good.

True, I am just wondering, how anybody thinks, that the fact, that Kyle Rittenhouse got his gún from some far right militia shithead, instead of just taking it, when it is lying around in the parent's guncabinet would help his case.

[Shalcker]

True, I am just wondering, how anybody thinks, that the fact, that Kyle Rittenhouse got his gún from some far right militia shithead, instead of just taking it, when it is lying around in the parent's guncabinet would help his case.

It skips "state-hopping with assault rifle" charge, which would be punishable in both.

[Mayhem]

Just gonna post this here as the other thread was closed as soon as I finished typing and it applies to this one to.



Compare America to the rest of the First world world it out paces most country’s on police killings (rather it was justified or not) an insanely huge prison population and this last one is just guess as I don’t feel like looking it up but I’d guess it has far more misconduct reports.

The numbers don’t lie either the police are just worse then most of the first world and have a system made to support them even when they are in the wrong or America’s are the worse people on the planet and the police are totally justified for cracking down on them so much harder. These are the only to opinions you have to pick one.

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/List...ers_by_country

The argument "number of officers that were guilty of misconduct" is especially bonkers considering qualified immunity exists and officers being differently treated under the law not only because of their profession but also because of who they dealt with (talking about minorities here if it isn't obvious).

- - - Updated - - -

By current claims he didn't cross state lines with that weapon and was given it by lawful owner of that weapon on the spot.

Thus the only argument can be given here is that he was not allowed to carry it even if given by lawful owner, which is quite weak accusation.

Oh, so it's two that are guilty not just one, yeah, that'll help his case.

"No, sir, I didn't bring this weapon with me that I wasn't allowed to open carry, some dude I met gave it to me. Yeah, I was still illegally carrying a loaded weapon during protests and was out past curfew but hey, at least I didn't bring it with me when my mom drove me here!"

[Shalcker]

Oh, so it's two that are guilty not just one, yeah, that'll help his case.

"No, sir, I didn't bring this weapon with me that I wasn't allowed to open carry, some dude I met gave it to me. Yeah, I was still illegally carrying a loaded weapon during protests and was out past curfew but hey, at least I didn't bring it with me when my mom drove me here!"

"I was given this weapon for self-defence/deterrence given continued riots, and i used it in self-defence" will be most likely line taken.

"If a person is not otherwise prohibited from possessing a firearm, it is legal to carry any legal firearm openly in Wisconsin."

[DarkTZeratul]

Oh, so it's two that are guilty not just one, yeah, that'll help his case.

"No, sir, I didn't bring this weapon with me that I wasn't allowed to open carry, some dude I met gave it to me. Yeah, I was still illegally carrying a loaded weapon during protests and was out past curfew but hey, at least I didn't bring it with me when my mom drove me here!"

That would make three guilty parties, actually, counting his mom who transported him across state lines after he murdered two people.

[josykay]

"I was given this weapon for self-defence/deterrence given continued riots, and i used it in self-defence" will be most likely line taken.

"If a person is not otherwise prohibited from possessing a firearm, it is legal to carry any legal firearm openly in Wisconsin."

To which i explicitly traveled from outer state, and met with inheritly violent, confronting militia men, which provided me with a fire arm, i am not allowed to own legally... yeah that defense surely stands strong.
Particulary after self defense advocates habe already conceded the claim of molotov Cocktail and brick being bullshit .

[Mayhem]

"I was given this weapon for self-defence/deterrence given continued riots, and i used it in self-defence" will be most likely line taken.

"If a person is not otherwise prohibited from possessing a firearm, it is legal to carry any legal firearm openly in Wisconsin."

His age doesn't change because someone else hands him a weapon, you do know that?

- - - Updated - - -

That would make three guilty parties, actually, counting his mom who transported him across state lines after he murdered two people.

Oh, his mom is in it anyways. I was just talking about the illegal carry part.

[Shalcker]

To which i explicitly traveled from outer state, and met with inheritly violent, confronting militia men, which provided me with a fire arm, i am not allowed to own legally... yeah that defense surely stands strong.

Travelled 15 miles from another state, literally from town next door that happens to be on other side of state line.

I don't think him traveling there is ever going to be deciding point; traveling across state lines is obviously allowed.

As for "inherently violent, confronting militia men" - that sounds suspiciously like racist propaganda about inherently violent minorities. Judge people by their actions, not by your own prejudices.

He wasn't being violent there - he assisted people with minor medical help (his job seems to be lifeguard), cleared graffiti, and, in interaction with his first victim, used fire extinguisher to put down trash container fire as it was pushed toward police.

Particulary after self defense advocates habe already conceded the claim of molotov Cocktail and brick being bullshit .

He didn't have perfect information at the time, and shots were fired by someone else before he used his weapon. He stopped, his attacker (future first victim) reached for his gun (that's where real threat comes from, not from that bag thrown before that), and he then shot him.

Seems perfectly in alignment with US perceptions of what constitutes self-defense. He never shot anyone who wasn't already attacking him.

Doesn't mean he doesn't deserve to be punished for that - i consider US attitude "walk free if it was self-defense" to be ridiculous in general - but it is still self-defense.

- - - Updated - - -

His age doesn't change because someone else hands him a weapon, you do know that?

Laws are often quite context-dependent, and part for those between 16 and 18 seems to be vague in state in question, and thus more likely (but not guaranteed) to be judged in his favor.

[omeomorfismo]

If you have a weapon and someone charges at you, what would you have done?

maybe i would start to ask myself if the weapon is the cause? maybe its because im not american, but going around with a firearm aimed is something considered crazy, dangerous and lunatic, at best.

[KaPe]

Travelled 15 miles from another state, literally from town next door that happens to be on other side of state line.

I don't think him traveling there is ever going to be deciding point; traveling across state lines is obviously allowed.

It doesn't matter how far it is. People don't get to ignore the laws of a different state just because it was "only 15 miles". By that logic, why not 16 miles? 17? 25? State lines are state lines, not "state lines + x miles".

[Felya]

It doesn't matter how far it is. People don't get to ignore the laws of a different state just because it was "only 15 miles". By that logic, why not 16 miles? 17? 25? State lines are state lines, not "state lines + x miles".

By Trump logic, since we share a border with Mexico, this ignoring law within 15 miles, must mean they want open borders.

[Shalcker]

It doesn't matter how far it is. People don't get to ignore the laws of a different state just because it was "only 15 miles". By that logic, why not 16 miles? 17? 25? State lines are state lines, not "state lines + x miles".

Which law exactly do you think about here?

As far as i understand it he complied with law of the state to which he traveled.