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

[Edge-]

https://www.politifact.com/factcheck...-other-causes/

Biden said that more cops have died from COVID-19 than while on patrol.

COVID-19 by itself has killed more law enforcement officers than all other causes combined, according to two groups that track these numbers.

No matter how we parsed the data — by excluding correctional and detention center officers, or by focusing on felonious deaths to officers that could be considered "on patrol" — COVID-19 posed the greatest single threat to officers’ lives.

We rate this claim Mostly True.

Reminder that if the "BLUE LIVES MATTERS" folks cared about law enforcement officers so much, they wouldn't be holding anti-mask protests and would be trying to find ways to better protect officers from the single greatest risk to their lives this year: A virus that has killed more officers than all other causes of death combined.

[Krakan]

Because it isn't "in-white conflict". The protests in which this was set was about the police brutalization and victimization of black Americans.



In short, yes. The only real alternative is that they're grossly willfully ignorant and for some reason unwilling to make even a basic effort to learn the facts. But that generally means the first.



And yet, you can't make an argument that supports that.

The Wisconsin self defense law, which I've linked at least three times now, clearly contradicts you on this. You don't get to rewrite the law to suit your feels.

I'm not rewriting the law. I simply have a more nuanced understanding of it then you.

The only way it doesn't hold up is if you can know the thoughts of his attacker and know with a certainty he would not turn the weapon on his victim if he gained control of it.

[Edge-]

Fair enough my bad. Though to be fair I think china qualifies as a first world country

I'd say it does, but from what I'm seeing the data is pretty limited. So "Most first world countries" remains a perfectly accurate statement, even accounting for the lack of accurate data from China as a single exception, if it is one, doesn't contradict "most".

[Krakan]

I'd say it does, but from what I'm seeing the data is pretty limited. So "Most first world countries" remains a perfectly accurate statement, even accounting for the lack of accurate data from China as a single exception, if it is one, doesn't contradict "most".

Depends if you give by population or by actual countries but I'm willing to say I was wrong as we are now simply splitting hairs.

[Endus]

I'm not rewriting the law. I simply have a more nuanced understanding of it then you.

Making shit up is not a "more nuanced understanding".

And you are making shit up.

The only way it doesn't hold up is if you can know the thoughts of his attacker and know with a certainty he would not turn the weapon on his victim if he gained control of it.

This is absolutely false.

There is no expectation of psychic mind-reading under the law. This is where you start making shit up, to try and avoid having the law apply to this case. "Oh, Rittenhouse wasn't literally psychic, so he can shoot whoever he wants" is a really bad argument and does not have any merit at all.

[Krakan]

Making shit up is not a "more nuanced understanding".

And you are making shit up.



This is absolutely false.

There is no expectation of psychic mind-reading under the law. This is where you start making shit up, to try and avoid having the law apply to this case. "Oh, Rittenhouse wasn't literally psychic, so he can shoot whoever he wants" is a really bad argument and does not have any merit at all.

I'm not making anything up... you don't need to wait for the blade to be 3 inches deep before its self defense and you don't need to be on the ground desperately wrestling for control of a gun either.

I am sorry these seems beyond your comprehension.

[Daedius]

He should face conviction for fleeing the state and illegally carrying a weapon but the key difference in your example and what happened at no point did his attacker reliant or show hesitant barring the one who had most of his arm blown off.

Kyle is going to be exonerated... overwhelming evidence clear as day it was 100% self-defense in all instances of his shootings... at no point was he the instigator, yet the left-wing media has portrayed him as "going on a rampage". People claiming he illegally brought a firearm over, said firearm was from a friend of his in Wisconsin so it didn't travel across states. At best he'll probably get a misdemeanor for something.

Hell, the idiot that got shot in the arm [that had a pistol] gave Kyle's defense more ammo when he said in a twitter post that he regretted not emptying a clip into Kyle.

I hope, like Sandmann, he'll sue the Media for defamation when he was completely acting within the law of self defense.

[Endus]

I'm not making anything up... you don't need to wait for the blade to be 3 inches deep before its self defense and you don't need to be on the ground desperately wrestling for control of a gun either.

I am sorry these seems beyond your comprehension.

You literally argued that Rittenhouse does not have psychic mind-reading powers and so should have special considerations.

There was no "blade". Rosenbaum was not armed at all. There was no imminent threat of death or great bodily harm. You keep pretending that your overactive imagination means you can make up a bunch of imaginary nonsense and that means you can shoot whoever you want and it's "self defense".

The facts are that there was no blade.
The facts are there was no gun, other than Rittenhouse's (for the first shooting, at least).
Making up new "facts" means you're lying about the facts to present your fantasies as if they were reality, and that's not how anything works. You don't get to make shit like that up. Your imagination is not relevant.

[SirBeef]

Yes that is disgusting, and I'm sure many Police disagree with him. Had to stop with the TYT follow up though, ain't listening to their tripe.

On a side note, certainly doesn't help when the DA of Portland refuses to process rioters on criminal charges whom end up back on the streets to commit more rioting.

Leave retarded Bill Murray alone.

[Draco-Onis]

There doesn't seem to be anything widely available that contradicts their version of events.

Besides the videos and the dead bodies you know small details.

[SirBeef]

Kyle is going to be exonerated... overwhelming evidence clear as day it was 100% self-defense in all instances of his shootings... at no point was he the instigator, yet the left-wing media has portrayed him as "going on a rampage". People claiming he illegally brought a firearm over, said firearm was from a friend of his in Wisconsin so it didn't travel across states. At best he'll probably get a misdemeanor for something.

I hope, like Sandmann, he'll sue the Media for defamation when he was completely acting within the law.

Except he wasn't. He crossed stated lines illegally carrying a weapon he was not allowed to be carrying. He was a willing combatant.

- - - Updated - - -

Besides the videos and the dead bodies you know small details.

He knows jack shit. We know this every time he posts anything here.

[Endus]

Kyle is going to be exonerated... overwhelming evidence clear as day it was 100% self-defense in all instances of his shootings... at no point was he the instigator, yet the left-wing media has portrayed him as "going on a rampage". People claiming he illegally brought a firearm over, said firearm was from a friend of his in Wisconsin so it didn't travel across states. At best he'll probably get a misdemeanor for something.

I hope, like Sandmann, he'll sue the Media for defamation when he was completely acting within the law.

Eyewitness testimony states that Rittenhouse was handling his weapon incompetently and putting people at risk, which would have justified someone disarming him.
At no point was Rittenhouse facing threat of imminent death or great bodily harm, with Rosenbaum. Lethal force in self defense could not be justified there.
The second incident involved weapons, but that was a case of bystanders trying to take down an active shooter; they are the ones acting in defense of themselves and others, not Rittenhouse.

Claiming he got the gun from a friend is a major issue, since that makes his friend an accessory, and doesn't mean Rittenhouse was entitled to carry the weapon.

Again; if this was self defense, Rittenhouse was obliged to immediately turn himself in to the police. If the riot cops are too busy to take his statement and whatnot, he was obliged to go to the local PD. He did not do this. He fled the State, instead. That's a clear demonstration of mens rea, especially when after he'd killed Rosenbaum, he called a friend (not the police) and is clearly audible on video saying he'd just killed someone, so he can't even claim he didn't know what he'd done until later.

He killed two people and maimed a third and fled the scene and the State. You don't do that without an understanding that you're guilty of a crime. This alone is likely all that needs to be cited in court to shut down any claim of self defense.

[Edge-]

Except he wasn't. He crossed stated lines illegally carrying a weapon he was not allowed to be carrying. He was a willing combatant.

And, per the Daily Caller reporter who provided statements for the criminal complaint, he was handling his weapon very poorly which would indicate that he was likely waving it around or pointing it at people, which absolutely presents a threat to protesters that they can claim motivated their actions in self defense of what appeared to be an unstable kid with a gun.

[JohnBrown1917]

It's a cool picture but is there a movement asking for democrats to denounce violence? The most I've seen is people begging the DA of the afflicted cities to press charges.

You should ask Trump, because this is about him and Kyle, not any movements.

[Darththeo]

Eyewitness testimony states that Rittenhouse was handling his weapon incompetently and putting people at risk, which would have justified someone disarming him.
At no point was Rittenhouse facing threat of imminent death or great bodily harm, with Rosenbaum. Lethal force in self defense could not be justified there.
The second incident involved weapons, but that was a case of bystanders trying to take down an active shooter; they are the ones acting in defense of themselves and others, not Rittenhouse.

Claiming he got the gun from a friend is a major issue, since that makes his friend an accessory, and doesn't mean Rittenhouse was entitled to carry the weapon.

Again; if this was self defense, Rittenhouse was obliged to immediately turn himself in to the police. If the riot cops are too busy to take his statement and whatnot, he was obliged to go to the local PD. He did not do this. He fled the State, instead. That's a clear demonstration of mens rea, especially when after he'd killed Rosenbaum, he called a friend (not the police) and is clearly audible on video saying he'd just killed someone, so he can't even claim he didn't know what he'd done until later.

He killed two people and maimed a third and fled the scene and the State. You don't do that without an understanding that you're guilty of a crime. This alone is likely all that needs to be cited in court to shut down any claim of self defense.

I would like to say Thank you for expressing why exactly Kyle's case is not an open and shut self defense claim people think it is. People don't understand that self defense is a claim and needs to be proven in a court of law where it will be challenged by the facts of the case.

[Endus]

I would like to say Thank you for expressing why exactly Kyle's case is not an open and shut self defense claim people think it is. People don't understand that self defense is a claim and needs to be proven in a court of law where it will be challenged by the facts of the case.

It's an affirmative defense. You need to prove it was self defense. Even if you provide evidence that "maybe it was self defense, maybe not, can't really tell", that means you get convicted for first degree murder because you did not establish your defense claim.

People seem be play-acting as Michael Scott and think if they just shout "SELF DEFENSE" super loud, they have declared it and the courts must presume it to be true. That's not how this works.

[kail]

I think the problem is that we have this:

Saw that in the latest JO segment. The fact he is still holding his job as a police sheriff is the dead canary in a coal mine. Clear cut racists like him have zero business in law enforcement.

[Daedius]

Eyewitness testimony states that Rittenhouse was handling his weapon incompetently and putting people at risk, which would have justified someone disarming him.
At no point was Rittenhouse facing threat of imminent death or great bodily harm, with Rosenbaum. Lethal force in self defense could not be justified there.
The second incident involved weapons, but that was a case of bystanders trying to take down an active shooter; they are the ones acting in defense of themselves and others, not Rittenhouse.

Claiming he got the gun from a friend is a major issue, since that makes his friend an accessory, and doesn't mean Rittenhouse was entitled to carry the weapon.

Again; if this was self defense, Rittenhouse was obliged to immediately turn himself in to the police. If the riot cops are too busy to take his statement and whatnot, he was obliged to go to the local PD. He did not do this. He fled the State, instead. That's a clear demonstration of mens rea, especially when after he'd killed Rosenbaum, he called a friend (not the police) and is clearly audible on video saying he'd just killed someone, so he can't even claim he didn't know what he'd done until later.

He killed two people and maimed a third and fled the scene and the State. You don't do that without an understanding that you're guilty of a crime. This alone is likely all that needs to be cited in court to shut down any claim of self defense.

Twist it how you will, there's videos clearly demonstrating the events unfold from how he put out a fire in a dumpster being lit by a mob with an extinguisher, whom directed their sights on him where Rosenbaum, who was earlier aggressively taunting Kyle to shoot him, started to charge at him while Kyle was trying to get away (with reports someone fired at him I might add)... throwing stuff at him, till Kyle was cornered where upon Rosenbaum tried to take his gun. Can you honestly say with a straight face that you would give up your firearm to someone, with a mob behind him, beating you down scuffling for it and think your life isn't in danger?

Literally all his shots were when he couldn't get away, from someone swinging a skateboard to his head, someone trying to head stomp him, and someone drawing a pistol on him... yet the media has painted him as going on a "rampage". All those videos quickly disprove that. He wasn't shooting indiscriminately.

[Edge-]

Twist it how you will, there's videos clearly demonstrating the events unfold from how he put out a fire in a dumpster

That doesn't appear to be Rittenhouse? Hard to tell if it's him due to the darkness, but the image doesn't name him in the article.

[Draco-Onis]

Twist it how you will, there's videos clearly demonstrating the events unfold from how he put out a fire in a dumpster being lit by a mob with an extinguisher, whom directed their sights on him where Rosenbaum, who was earlier aggressively taunting Kyle to shoot him, started to charge at him while Kyle was trying to get away (with reports someone fired at him I might add)... throwing stuff at him, till Kyle was cornered where upon Rosenbaum tried to take his gun. Can you honestly say with a straight face that you would give up your firearm to someone, with a mob behind him, beating you down scuffling for it and think your life isn't in danger?

Literally all his shots were when he couldn't get away, from someone swinging a skateboard to his head, someone trying to head stomp him, and someone drawing a pistol on him... yet the media has painted him as going on a "rampage". All those videos quickly disprove that.

Because simply any fictional version of events you have of him goes out the window when you consider he came from out of state, armed himself to be there voluntarily. There's also the video of him holding his weapon bragging that "we don't do non lethal". He inserted himself in any situation you can spin off, it's not the media it's Rittenhouse. He lost any claim of being a victim the second he went to another state, he came looking for a fight in his own words.