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

[Jester Joe]

I'm not seeing how it matters in this situation as far as judging this paramedic actions goes.

Stop evading the question.
Are you fine with someone running down the street while people shout "he killed someone! get him!" being gunned down on the spot by passerby with a gun?
Or do you think running up to someone who fallen with gun drawn implies some other intent? If so, which one?
Maybe you think he wanted to stop him in non-lethal way using a gun, just like Rittenhouse did to him?

I have no interest in playing your games of hypothetical questions that have no relevancy to the situation.

He wasn't gunned down. You can stop with your "but are you fine with it?!" when it didn't happen. Because it's irrelevant. It's like several logical fallacies loaded into one statement.

We're not discussing "what if's". We're discussing what happened.

[Shalcker]

I have no interest in playing your games of hypothetical questions that have no relevancy to the situation.

It's not hypothetical; it's exactly what happened.

He wasn't gunned down. You can stop with your "but are you fine with it?!" when it didn't happen. Because it's irrelevant. It's like several logical fallacies loaded into one statement.

Again, what is the reason for paramedic to run at someone with gun drawn? What is your opinion? Why would you do that, personally? Why do you think he did?

If you see something different in that situation, i'm fine with alternatives, even if you want to assume perfect information by everyone around.

Just threaten him with a gun so that he stops until police arrives? ...someone who allegedly already killed, and still has gun in his hands, and already moves in police direction?

[Jester Joe]

It's not hypothetical; it's exactly what happened.

Are you fine with someone running down the street while people shout "he killed someone! get him!" being gunned down on the spot by passerby with a gun?

That isn't what happened. Again, I have no interest in this and I'm not going off on a tangent past this about it.

[Shalcker]

That isn't what happened. Again, I have no interest in this and I'm not going off on a tangent past this about it.

To me it means you have nothing that could explain paramedic actions there in a satisfactory way. Which to me means you think he is guilty in that situation but don't want to admit it.

Okay, let's stop with that.

[Jester Joe]

To me it means you have nothing that could explain paramedic actions there in a satisfactory way. Which to me means you think he is guilty in that situation but don't want to admit it.

Okay, let's stop with that.

Again, logical fallacies don't prove your point.

And I have no interest in arguing with someone who's trying to suddenly claim that Kyle got gunned down apparently, and then thinks being called out on arguing hypothetical is "winning".

[Shalcker]

Again, logical fallacies don't prove your point.

And I have no interest in arguing with someone who's trying to suddenly claim that Kyle got gunned down apparently, and then thinks being called out on arguing hypothetical is "winning".

He was not gunned down because he shot first in a situation where you cannot provide any alternative explanation for running up to someone with gun drawn.

If he wasn't trying to gun him down then pulling out the gun is even more idiotic. Should people get shot for being idiots with a gun? Probably not, but in US they often do.

[Shadowferal]

I'm so amused by those that called themselves pacifists a year ago.
But even more amused by those that wanted to repeal the 2nd amendment but consider today that a gun in hand isn't an open threat. It's like you guys gave up...or grew up, when you realized that pacifism doesn't work in the US.

[Pannonian]

But even more amused by those that wanted to repeal the 2nd amendment but consider today that a gun in hand isn't an open threat. It's like you guys gave up...or grew up, when you realized that pacifism doesn't work in the US.

How is that even funny? Do you really think as soon as you are against the 2A you perceive any gun as a threat? I'm perfectly comfortable with not seeing every gun as a threat and at the same time thinking not every person should get weapons without any oversight.

Must be weird in your strict black/white world...

[Jester Joe]

He was not gunned down because he shot first in a situation where you cannot provide any alternative explanation for running up to someone with gun drawn.

If he wasn't trying to gun him down then pulling out the gun is even more idiotic. Should people get shot for being idiots with a gun? Probably not, but in US they often do.

Let's just make this clear.

Your argument is Gaige ran up to someone who was on the ground, had his finger off the gun trigger for a good duration of it, and tried to walk past Kyle...to gun him down.

Instead of you know, shooting him the moment Kyle fell to the ground.

This is why I'm not talking about your hypothetical situations where you act as if you know exactly what was going through people's heads, or like it's some sort of 4D chess where Gaige is some mastermind trying to shoot someone by not having his gun pointed at them.

[Orange Joe]

I'm so amused by those that called themselves pacifists a year ago.
But even more amused by those that wanted to repeal the 2nd amendment but consider today that a gun in hand isn't an open threat. It's like you guys gave up...or grew up, when you realized that pacifism doesn't work in the US.

Who are these people?

And I ask again. If a gun in hand is a threat does that not make Kyle a threat worth disarming?

[Endus]

To me it means you have nothing that could explain paramedic actions there in a satisfactory way. Which to me means you think he is guilty in that situation but don't want to admit it.

Okay, let's stop with that.

The only thing Grosskreutz did "wrong", in retrospect, is that he should have just shot Rittenhouse dead before he could kill one more protester and maim Grosskreutz himself.

Literally, that's the only thing. He should have shot Rittenhouse and killed him.

That is, admittedly, something we can only see in hindsight, and I for one am not going to condemn the man for choosing to hold his fire in the hope that he could de-escalate the situation without further shooting. He showed far more restraint and self-control than the murderer did, obviously.

What on Earth could you possibly take issue with, regarding Grosskreutz' actions?

[Cizr]

That isn't cherrypicking. Your second image again, shows the same. Kyle clearly still has his gun up and ready to shoot. And you're completely ignoring in your first image of the "charge" there's a person between Kyle and Gaige. And Gaige's body is in a position of "sudden stop to assess", not "charging". Hands in clear visible sight to the sides, palms open which shows there's nothing in his hands.

And as above post says, that doesn't look at all like what you're describing. That looks like Gaige was going AROUND Kyle, and Kyle shot at him. Leg posture and all makes it look like Gaige was moving to whoever got knocked down.

That does not seem to be the case. Why would he go AROUND Kyle (red arrow) if he was moving to whoever got knocked down (blue) ? Kyle was not between him and knocked guy. Also whole time he is facing Kyle.

https://imgur.com/a/MrGdQlM

- - - Updated - - -

Who are these people?

And I ask again. If a gun in hand is a threat does that not make Kyle a threat worth disarming?

Just having gun in a hand is not a threat. Chasing someone and pointing gun at them is.

[KaPe]

Let's just make this clear.

Your argument is Gaige ran up to someone who was on the ground, had his finger off the gun trigger for a good duration of it, and tried to walk past Kyle...to gun him down.

Instead of you know, shooting him the moment Kyle fell to the ground.

This is why I'm not talking about your hypothetical situations where you act as if you know exactly what was going through people's heads, or like it's some sort of 4D chess where Gaige is some mastermind trying to shoot someone by not having his gun pointed at them.

Hell, he could have shot him in the back earlier. Or later, once Rittenhouse thought he was safe. He had multiple chances and didn't do it - which is showing incredible restraint.

I cannot see how one can look at this situation and claim that Gaige was trying to kill Kyle. If that was the case, why would he even bother to approach him and risk his own life? Why supposedly "charge" straight at him, instead of shooting from a distance? It's not an action you'd take if you were going for the kill - while also putting himself in an incredible danger, where he almost died as well.

But yeah, sure, he's simultaneously cunning enough to fool Rittenhouse into false feeling of safety, while also so stupid that he charged from the front to get shot. Schrodinger's 4D chessmaster.

[Orange Joe]

Just having gun in a hand is not a threat. Chasing someone and pointing gun at them is.

Who pointed their gun at Kyle?

[omeomorfismo]

That does not seem to be the case. Why would he go AROUND Kyle (red arrow) if he was moving to whoever got knocked down (blue) ? Kyle was not between him and knocked guy. Also whole time he is facing Kyle.

https://imgur.com/a/MrGdQlM

- - - Updated - - -



Just having gun in a hand is not a threat. Chasing someone and pointing gun at them is.

the fun fact is that only the murderer child pointed someone with his weapon....
the other guy even show to kyle that he wouldnt even use that gun

[Deus Mortis]

I don't know about you, but if you have to give a cheesy way to get around a paywalled article, chances are you can't claim it's "easy

It is easy to do and the articles were easy to find. So yes I will claim it easy.

He had a gun, but it wasn't drawn until after they were already encountered. The first two images have no gun in his hand, hence the "open palms". That's all I'm pointing out there.

How many people do you need to point out with pictures he had a weapon. All you are doing is giving Shalcker talking points by not knowing what actually happened.

The only thing Grosskreutz did "wrong", in retrospect, is that he should have just shot Rittenhouse dead before he could kill one more protester and maim Grosskreutz himself.

Literally, that's the only thing. He should have shot Rittenhouse and killed him.

According to Gaige Grosskreutz friend apparently Gaige feels the same way.

[Jester Joe]

It is easy to do and the articles were easy to find. So yes I will claim it easy.

How many people do you need to point out with pictures he had a weapon. All you are doing is giving Shalcker talking points by not knowing what actually happened

Because dragging the discussion around by jabbing at people is totally better? On top of that, burden of proof lays on the person making the claim which was Shalcker who made the claim that he had the gun in his hand, not mine.

So no, I'm not going to spend 10-15 minutes poking around to find out that using incognito mode could possibly go through a paywall. And it's weird that you're so gungho on trying to make it seem like I should be the one to prove someone else's claim, to the point that you're coming in after the discussion is done just to drag it back up again.

[postman1782]

Logic you see here is "when you chase and point your weapon at someone you can get shot". Kyle had two options - let Gaige shoot him or shoot him first himself.

Considering Rittenhouse has already murdered 2 people in front of the 3rd guy, that guy would have been well within his rights to blow that kids head off, and didn't. He was trying to get him to stop, and detain him. He is what the NRA calls a "Good guy with a gun" stopping a "bad guy with a gun".

- - - Updated - - -

Seeing how Kyle did not shoot anyone who was not attacking him and was making his way towards cops the answer is probably 0

Sorry, the evidence doesn't back this up. He murdered Rosenbaum, and murdered the 2nd guy, that was trying to detain him. There are 2 witnesses that see Rittenhouse pointing his gun at people, which would give Rosenbaum ample evidence to disarm him.

[Xyonai]

There's also the fact that, for all anyone there might've known at the time, some kid just shot someone and was trying to run away. The grounds for self-defense become even more fucked there and blaming the - admittedly short sighted - victims who tried to jump on who they assumed to be an active shooter is asinine. Especially after hearing for the last decade that 'The only guy who can stop a bad guy with a gun, is a good guy with a gun', followed by those same people clutching their pearls about how a man's legally owned handgun justified them being shot by someone else's illegally owned AR15.

But I guess the difference here is that the shooter was some panicking conservative kid in way over his head and the victims' political beliefs put him on the opposite side of them.

[postman1782]

There's also the fact that, for all anyone there might've known at the time, some kid just shot someone and was trying to run away. The grounds for self-defense become even more fucked there and blaming the - admittedly short sighted - victims who tried to jump on who they assumed to be an active shooter is asinine. Especially after hearing for the last decade that 'The only guy who can stop a bad guy with a gun, is a good guy with a gun', followed by those same people clutching their pearls about how a man's legally owned handgun justified them being shot by someone else's illegally owned AR15.

But I guess the difference here is that the shooter was some panicking conservative kid in way over his head and the victims' political beliefs put him on the opposite side of them.

Trump supporters defending Trump supporters, even if they are terrorists/mass shooters.